Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Blasts Sun's Open Source Patent Licensing

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the always-with-a-skeptical-eye dept.

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."

6 of 591 comments (clear)

  1. Schwartz blasts IBM patent hooie by wombatmobile · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Rooktoven · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  4. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    Some folks with law degrees understand pieces better than I. I specialize in being a bridge between different groups, like law and engineering. Somebody's got to be able to explain one side to the other.

    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.
  5. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form?

    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.
  6. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    There is a fundamental difference between patents and copyright. Copyright covers the literal embodiment of someone else's work. Patents really cover ideas. They aren't supposed to, they are supposed to cover concrete implementations of ideas, but the computer has blurred that distinction.

    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.