Sun Grants Access to 1,600+ Patents

Insane_zoD writes "Looks like Sun is attempting to keep up with IBM in opening up patents for FOSS-based projects. From the news release: 'By giving open source developers free access to Sun OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), the company is fostering open innovation and establishing a leadership role in the framework of a patent commons that will be recognized across the globe.'"

Comments

Where is the license?

[passthecrackpipe]

Where is the license? All I see is a press release with vague language and much arm-waving. As I read the press release, the patents are only available for work in OpenSolaris (which as of now does not exist yet - only DTrace). Or work under the CDDL. Or both. Nowhere do I see a statement that says "use these patents with any OSI-approved licensed project, or indeed any clear statement as to right of use.

Looks like there are some strings attached.

Re:Where is the license?

[gormanly]

Sun are still working on binary emulation for closed-source code compiled for GNU/Linux.

The CDDL prevents use of the code in Linux or any other GPLed project.

This means those projects don't get a license to use the 1600 patents either.

It might seem to be okay if you don't care about freedom to use the code in any way you like...

Re:Where is the license?

[Halo1]

No matter what happens with SCO's malicious patent crusade

SCO is saying nothing about patents, their lawsuit is about copyright. IBM did countersue based on (software) patent infringement, but that was just to pester them back, and has in se nothing to do with the SCO allegations.

Re:Where is the license?

[essreenim]

RTFPost. The article does not say anything about the patents being licensed under the CDDL. It mumbles vaguely about OpenSolaris, CDDL, and patents. And as such, it is a press release, carrying zero weight in court. All I'm saying is that this is Sun, so it would behoove everybody to read the small print before jumping to conclusions.

I'm sorry but I think Sun must have burnt you in the past. Im reading directly from the licence itself. The licence seems fine.

As far as I can see section 3.3 makes it imcopatible with Linux (as we know it) however.

If your goals are less than ideal however, there is nothing to stop you using this code to make a relatively free (as in freedom O.S.) The sad part is that it doesn't seem. Its ironic. Is it me? The way I work this out, the license of Linux itself prevents use?

Re:Where is the license?

[freemacmini]

By paying 9.3 millions dollars to SCO sun has acknowledged that some code in solaris is owned by SCO.

SCO would be free to sue to any project that included code that came from solaris.

Re:Where is the license?

[dstewart]

From the FAQ:

"Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?

CDDL is file-based; that means that files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; be sure to read and recognize those."

http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html

So, it might be better to say the GPL is be incompatible with the CDDL. No fault in the design of the CDDL.

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

Eric Schrock, a developer for Sun, posits his opinions on why the GPL would not be a good fit for Sun.

Well, this is basically rehashing some well-known arguments that are often brought up in a GPL vs. BSD debate or Free Software vs. Open Source software.

In a nutshell, the GPL gives you some freedoms but only if you accept its rather strict conditions. GPL advocates claim that it is a good thing, while GPL opponents claim that it is a bad thing. The basic idea that differentiates the GPL from other licenses is that a piece of code licensed under the GPL should not be used to give an advantage to non-free software. This is why the GPLed code cannot be linked together with code that is not GPL-compatible. This is also why RMS encourages developers to release their library code under the GPL instead of LGPL, although many developers who are more "open" still release code under the LGPL (e.g., GLib and GTK+, etc.)

The analogy with Oracle having to release their whole code under the GPL is also frequently (ab)used. Nobody is forcing Oracle (or anybody else) to incorporate some pieces of GPLed code into their software. They can easily rewrite something similar on their own, if they need it. If the author of the interesting function wants to promote Free Software and does not want to give an advantage to proprietary software, then his/her wishes should be respected. This is what the GPL does.

If you take the point of view of Oracle and you want to add some functions to your proprietary code, then GPLed software is not better than other proprietary software because you cannot just take it and use it without conditions. But if you take the GPL zealot's point of view, then it makes sense that the GPLed gift comes with some strings attached.

It is just a matter of choice. The arguments from Eric Schrock could interesting if the only option for Sun had been to release the code under the GPL or the CDDL but not both. But there is also the option to dual-license and allow those who get the code to continue their development under the GPL, CDDL, or both. Then anybody, including Oracle as in his example, would have been able to pick the best combination for them. But since Sun did not give any dual-licensing permissions for their code, they are effectively preventing a larger number of free software developers from using their code. It makes sense for them, but some of the arguments brought up in the press release and other public statements are rather misleading.

And what is the percentage?

[jmo_jon]

Very nice that they do some good but like IBM is this only an empty gesture. I admint I don't know how many patents they hold but I doubt 1600 is remotely close to that amount.

Re:And what is the percentage?

[LiquidCoooled]

Percentages don't matter.

If I was doing XYZ and I was restricted because of a patent, and the owner decided to open up the patent, then I would be happy.
It wouldn't matter whether they opened up everything else.

This is like Bill Gates yesterday giving away a shit load of money - people were moaning that its insignificant compared to his total worth.
Its still a few magnitudes larger than what you or I could achieve.

I actually think the real reason for opening up patents isn't however to help the little man, its to say "look we aren't evil, we are letting free software grow and develop, and we will try not to stand in its way".

Free like "Write code for us and we won't pay you"

[Vo0k]

These patents can't be used in any code other than OpenSolaris.

Armsrace?

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Now this is a war I could enjoy. Sun & IBM in an armsrace on who is going to free the most patents. I hope other companies don't want to be left out and start participating...

Translation:

[Vo0k]

Take my patents freely. Sue me for violating your patents (rightfuly or not) and you can't use my patents anymore.

Re:Translation:

[Hatta]

Problem is, in order to use one of Sun's patents, you have to give them all of your patents. Hardly fair.

Re:GPL compatible?

[geminidomino]

If this is the case, is there really any reason to care about this development?

There is more to Open Source than just GNU and Linux. Several less restrictive, more free licenses exist and plenty of projects use them.

Re:GPL compatible?

[ultraw]

Last time I checked, the Mozilla license, the BSD license, the Apache license... all not GPL compatible.

Stop fighting the GPL-is-the-best-no-it-isnt war.

As for the patents, it might indeed be in vain, but it might also encourage others to do so. The more idiotic patents are given away, the better.

Re:Not as good as IBM

[Halo1]

IBM opened the 500 patents it opened without restriction.

No, they didn't. The restriction is that their license is only valid for open source. I may be a less strict restriction than Sun's, but it still is an important one.

Re:Almost free software

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the real problem with these so-called "open" patents is they unfortunately legitimize software patents. We shouldn't have to get a license to use these patents since they never should have been granted in the first place.

IBM

[dolo666]

They are just following IBM and yet somehow I don't think Sun is grasping the true sense of Open Source. IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

Sun's trying to grab the brass ring without really putting their best foot forward, IMHO. This is a ploy to get people using Solaris, and therefore I think it's stupid.

Re:GPL compatible?

[Richard_at_work]

You got it the wrong way around, they ARE compatable with the GPL, but the GPL isnt compatable with them (IE you can take BSDLed code and use it in a GPL codebase, but you cant take GPLed code and use it in a BSDL codebase).

Novell is still in first place on this

[originalhack]

While it is nice to see IBM and Sun jumping on the bandwagon and it is a really cool gesture, the real benefit of a patent portfolio is when it can be used to force another company to cross-license. If IBM (or Sun) were to take the position that any company that initates a sleazy IP attack against an OSS project may find itself defending against IBM's entire patent portfolio, that would be very useful.

Perhaps, Novell would be willing to let IBM and Sun "copy" this

They both act in their own interest, not ours

[Anders Andersson]

IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

The number of patents opened up doesn't mean a lot, nor does the true intentions of either company. The fact that the existance of software patents as such stifle innovation is a more pressing problem. What the FOSS community needs is freedom from patent restrictions imposed by law, not generous license grants to use patents currently held by these companies. Every software developer still risks violating some other patent than those explicitely made available.

IBM's (or Sun's) generosity towards open source developers is good PR, but it also helps preserving a flawed patent regime by taking away your best arguments against it. If a major movie studio were to declare that it will no longer take legal action against those who download movies over the Internet, would you consider that "a good start" towards amending the DMCA?

If I had the money, I'd try to patent the most obvious and common programming techniques possible, and then prohibit everybody from using those, until the law had to be changed. Saying "I, the inventor of the wheel as well as the alphabet, hereby grant you an irrevocable, transferrable, royalty-free license to make wheels and write books" will lead us nowhere.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

I agree, their participation so far appears to be cynical and they seem to intend to operate as a "spoiler", fragmenting the Open Source community rather than supporting it. Otherwise, we would see them dual-licensing with CDDL and GPL, and their patents wouldn't be barred from use in Linux.

OpenOffice should be second in importance only to the Linux kernel among Open Source developers. And yet it has almost no developer community - IMO due to Sun's conduct. It's not clear that Sun has learned anything from that.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

Geoff,

Don't be silly. In contrast to BSD licensing, proprietary software manufacturers had no intention of reciprocating and providing Stallman with access to their code. Their existing licenses at the time did not admit that possibility, and still do not. Stallman could not make a larger work with compatible licensing, he could only offer his work for someone else to parasitize, without any return to Stallman or the community. And I don't see any reason why he should have done that.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[T-Ranger]

Well, not quite.

The GNU project was started in reaction to licenses that closed down communities. Its goal (though it has expanded further) was a return to that community spirit. That community existed because of the lack of licenses, "good" licenses, or licenses that just were not enforced - or a bit of all of them. Licenses existed that "fulfilled the goals of government grant projects".

It is an oversimplification to say that the FSF and the GPL was first. What they did do first was to attach political rational to what was previously pragmatic (or apathetic) actions.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[ckaminski]

Look at the respective sizes of the FSF and BSD communities, and you'll see why the GPL is so successful. People know that their work isn't going to be coopted by a commercial outfit without further benefit to the community.

I'm not complaining about the CDDL; I'm disappointed in Sun, but it's their choice. As is your choice to use a BSD license. The GPL is my choice.