Slashdot Mirror
RMS Blasts Sun's Open Source Patent Licensing
cdlu writes "RMS takes Sun to task on its recent announcement that it is releasing 1,600 patents to the open source community. Among the major points, the license the patents are released under doesn't apply to patents, and Sun has not promised to not sue anyone using the technology within free software projects."
This does not cover all of IBM's software patents, which must number in the thousands.
Missing a zero somewhere?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Somewhat similarly, Sun honcho Jonathon Schwartz posts these comments about IBM's patent assignments to the OSS movement in his blog:
ps. You've got to love IBM's ability to play the community. Going through some of the patents they "donated" to the open source community a few weeks back, it looks as if they all, curiously, seem to be due for payment - and thus potential expiration - this year. Were they destined for the bit bucket (turns out IBM is among the largest patent expirers in the world, along with its largest issuer).
And some of the patents have nothing to do with open source software - my favorite in the heap is this one.
1) It's pretty clear that patents have only been donated to CDDL projects (that is in fact people working on Solaris) and that GPL'd projects, or any other open source project not under the CDDL are excluded. And I don't think one can really speak of the patents being donated, it's simply a necessity for Sun to make sure that people are actually able to work on OpenSolaris and they wouldn't be if they were not allowed to use the patents.
2) I may be wrong, but from my understanding it's clear right now that the licens is not GPL-compliant.
That's a big IF, as in IF you download them. GNU tools aren't part of the default Solaris Distro-- at least they weren't with 7 and 8. Maybe that's changed.
Before we went to all Macs with a Linux backbone, we always had to download stuff off of Sun Freeware to get a get reasonable commmand line tools.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
"2) It is not clear what the actual scope of the licensing is and whether it will be GPL-compliant"
Depends what GPL-Compliant means. CDDL is very similar to GPL and appears to have much the same end game - if you develop with CDDL/GPL then all derivative works must use the same license.
However that also means that they are mutually un-compliant. Something developed under the GPL cannot be licensed under CDDL and vice-versa.
The point of my statement is that you can lie in a press release and most readers, even highly educated ones, won't realize. They don't have the specialized knowledge. So, it's up to people like us to point out details that others might miss.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Actually, I believe Solaris 8 included the "Solaris Software Companion".
It was lots of open source stuff... including Gnome and KDE, long before the Java Desktop System.
Sun Freeware was just the latest and greatest... plus a few other things that may not have been included on the Solaris CD.
Would it be too severe a blow to your anti-RMS zealotry to point out that there are nearly 30 non-GPL licences that he likes?
OSRM has a list of patents they found that Linux might infringe upon. No court has ruled whether or not any of those patents are valid. My attorney can look at the list and answer some questions, but I can't look at it. If I did, it would contaminate my work on Linux and I might have to pay triple damages for knowing infringement rather than unknowing. The law is set up so that you get penalized if you look. This is just one of the many very bad things about the software patent system.
My fear is that without a direct patent attack on Linux, Sun has no hope of making further headway with Solaris. Give the Linux folks just two years and there will be no value left to Solaris, Linux will have far overtaken it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Even if you never look at the other side's code, if you use a similar algorithm to theirs, and they've patented it, they can sue you for infringement. Even if you invented it independently. Indeed, some patents are so vaguely written that they can be used to sue people regarding ideas that were not yet invented when the patent was filed.
Supose that someone sued you and you knew you were right. Would you have the funds to prove that in court? Probably not. You'd have to admit they were right and settle for whatever terms they wish.
I can't overemphasize how badly the system stinks. It rewards bad actions at every level.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
perl -pe 's/(\w+)/GNU\/$1/sg;'
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
> If Sun didn't plan to do anything in the face of Linux,
> they would not have promoted their grant as one to all
> Open Source developers.
Personally, while I find the press release to leave plenty of questions unanswered and to be phrased for reading outside the developer community, I didn't come to the same conclusion you did when I read it and can't see why you do. It's just clueless PR-speak, not grand conspiracy by an evil genius.
On the subject of OpenOffice.org, what has copyright aggregation to do with patents? It's pretty common practice (Apache demands it for example) and is about the governance of the community, not the defence of patent suits. I agree that the Microsoft settlement left a bad taste but I don't think it was part of grand conspiracy, just a deep desire to end a crippling lawsuit. If it's Microsoft contracts and money that influence your judgement of the F/OSS motives of a company then surely this site should have you looking at some other gift-horses too?