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."

Comments

Copy Right Infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year IBM took a significant step forward in cooperation with the free software community, by offering blanket licenses for 500 of its patents to all free software developers. This does not cover all of IBM's software patents, which must number in the thousands. And there are other areas where IBM does not yet cooperate with the free software community--they have not provided the necessary information to port a free BIOS to ThinkPads, for instance, and they are still pursuing Treacherous Computing. Nonetheless, this is a real step. Recently Sun made an announcement that superficially seems similar. It said that Sun had given us "free access to Sun OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License." But those words do not really make sense. The CDDL is a license for the copyright on software, not a policy for licensing patents. It applies to specific code and nothing else. (Copyright and patents have essentially nothing in common in the requirements they impose on the public.)

So what has really happened here? Reading the announcement clearly, I think that it doesn't announce anything at all. It simply describes, in a different and grandiose way, the previously announced release of the Solaris source code as free software under Sun's idiosyncratic license, the CDDL. Outside Solaris, few or no free software packages use that license--and Sun has not said it won't sue us for implementing the same techniques in our own free software.

Perhaps Sun will eventually give substance to its words, and make this step a real one like IBM's. Perhaps some other large companies will take similar steps. Would this make free software safe from the danger of software patents? Would the problem of software patents be solved? Not on your life. Neither one.

We can be quite sure that not all large patent holders will do this. In fact, there is one company with lots of patents that surely won't take such a step. That is Microsoft, which says it is our enemy. Microsoft would love to make useful free software effectively illegal, and has plenty of money to pay lawyers to use whatever avenues governments provide them.

But the danger is not only from those that specifically consider us their enemies. It also comes from patent holders that are the enemy of everyone. These are the patent parasites--companies whose sole assets are patents, and whose only business is threats. Patent parasites don't really produce anything, they only suck the blood of those who do. As regards their choice of victims, they have the scruples of a mosquito, so you're only safe if they don't think you're worth biting.

Consider, for instance, the company founded by ex-Microsoft executive Myhrvold, which cheerfully says it is spending $350M to buy up patents (not specifically in software) so it can go around threatening and bullying everyone else. Of course, these parasites don't like to describe their activities in such terms. Much as the mafia, when it threatens to attack local businesses unless they pay, says it is charging for "protection", Myhrvold's company prefers to say it is "renting out" the patents. It expects this investment in what we could call the "patent protection racket" to pay off handsomely. For that to occur, lots of people have to get bitten.

The danger of software patents is not limited to free software, which is why the opposition to software patents is not limited to free software developers. Everyone involved with computers, aside from the megacorporations, must expect to lose. For instance, proprietary software developers are much more likely to be the victims of patents than to have a chance to use patents for aggression. Although I don't think proprietary software is ethically legitimate, it is a fact that developers of proprietary software are in the same danger from patents, and many of them know it.

Then think of all the software that is neither free nor proprietary: private-use software, software developed for and used by one client. Most software is pri

Re:Copy Right Infringement

[Bruce Perens]

I think the difference between IBM and Sun in this case is that IBM did not give us everything, but did not attempt to tell us that they were. Sun attempted to promote that they were giving more than they actually did.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Copy Right Infringement

[Bruce Perens]

It would help defuse the "Gimme, gimme, gimme" public image that you people have cultivated ever so diligently over the past few years.

You sound as if you are deliberately trying to be offensive. If you haven't noticed, we are the folks who have been creating software and giving it away with licenses designed to keep the software free for everyone and without the patent strings that Sun is imposing on the process. We just want the right to continue to give away our own work and have everyone use it as they please. The gimmie-gimmie-gimmie is coming from folks who think they have the right to own ideas and keep others from using those ideas.

You send the message that you're about the destruction of property rights that we've held as axiomatic for centuries.

You mean since approximately 1984. There was no software patenting before the court case that made it legal in the U.S.. Even the U.S. patent office thought it was a bad idea. You can't possibly be that ignorant of history. You must just be trolling.

Bruce

Re:Copy Right Infringement

[808140]

Judging by the eloquence with which you both write, it seems unfortunate that your conversation should regress into this sort of competition-to-see-who-can-be-the-most-condescendi ng thing.

Of course I'm just a nameless number on a message board so I won't deceive myself about the import of my opinion in all this. But as reasonably impartial third party, it seems to me, Leo, that for all your talk about Bruce being condescending, you're the one that is maligning your own position with your heavy hand.

Now, I won't deny that some of what you've said has been insightful, but consider: you've phrased virtually every response to Bruce in this thread as if you were a professor in public relations. Some of the points you've made -- regarding phrasing things in a way that makes them appealing to someone who would otherwise be hostile to your platform -- are true, from a PR perspective, and I believe I should know, as PR is my profession (though in semiconductor manufacturing, not software). But the way in which you attempt to lecture Bruce makes you seem like the intellectual blowhard, when it seems that you desperately want to make him seem that way.

Furthermore, while some of your comments on, for example, business hostility to RMS's platform are unarguably true, your attempt to marginalize Linux, of all things, is just laughable! I'm going to talk from a completely business-oriented perspective here, and say with absolute confidence: Linux is, in the minds of today's IT-savvy businesspeople, the next big thing. That's why adverts for Linux-based solutions are popping up everywhere; that's why companies like IBM and Novell are pumping more money than you or I will make in a lifetime into it. It is seen by many, many knowledgeable people as the future, and by many companies as a serious threat.

Its future is not certain -- Bruce, ironically, has been making posts exactly to that effect throughout this story -- but to think that you could seriously imply that in 10 years Linux will be relegated to anything as trivial as an "Anyone remember Linux?" one-liner on a future message board is just silly.

I'm not sure that GNU has been a PR success, and it's quite likely that this is exactly for the reasons you enumerated. But Linux? Come on, be serious. It's a tremendous success. Everyone is talking about it. It's gaining mindshare at a tremendous rate. Non-technical people know the word, even if they don't know what it means. It runs much of the internet we use everyday. It's a tremendous, phenomenal success, whether you agree with its idealogy or not.

Further, there's much more to a "company" than a group of people united with a common goal -- someone with as sophisticated a vocabulary as yourself must be aware of this. A company has the distinctive implication of a group of people united with a common goal, certainly -- a goal that involves making money. Otherwise, Médecins Sans Frontières, Greenpeace, the Libertarian party -- all would be companies! Your definition is so wide as to be useless.

Community, movement, collective -- they have their good points and their bad points, all of them, because of the feelings they give the people that hear them. Company is like this as well -- ultra-capitalists especially are wary of companies, knowing full well that they (rightly) owe nothing to anyone but themselves.

Public relations is all about giving the public the impression you want them to have. In this game, audience is everything. Bruce is not talking to a bunch of suits looking to buy his product -- he's preaching to the choir. Most everyone here agrees with him (exceptions noted). Therefore, there is no reason for him to go around sounding like a PR flak.

Bruce, I've always been impressed with how tempered you manage to sound, but it seems to me that you let Leo push your buttons a little bit too much in this thread, and it did make you come off as

Re:Nice job, Sun.

[einhverfr]

Having been following this controversy for a while, I am not so sure. The following concerns have been raised:

1) Patents may have been donated only to CDDL projects, which would still preclude them from being used in GPL'd projects.

2) It is not clear what the actual scope of the licensing is and whether it will be GPL-compliant.

I am hopeful that these issues can be worked out, but it is too soon to tell whether this will actually be helpful or just a publicity stunt devoid of any real meaning.

Re:He's right!

[GigsVT]

This is more like looking a trojan horse in the mouth.

Re:He's right!

[Eberlin]

Now now, RMS can be a windbag once in a while, but on occasion he's been proven to be right. The revolution takes all kinds, soldier, and this guy (and the FSF) has gotten us pretty far.

I'm personally not a big fan of the Sun-MS and I guess that's my personal bias. They've done their share of good for the OSS movement, but have also done some incredibly damaging things to OSS as well. They're one of those wait-and-see types.

If the Chief GNU is barking at something, I'm willing to bet there's something there that's at least worth investigating. To borrow from your allusion, some gift horses come with nasty surprises.

Go suck eggs

[n1ywb]

RMS is one of the greatest allies of free software. He has stuck firmly to the principles he believes in. He has dedicated his life to evangelizing free software. He is in no small part responisble for the GPL and GNU/Linux. Can you say the same about yourself?

Re:Interesting discussion point.

[Bruce Perens]

If they offer it to all Open Source projects under all currently-accepted Open Source licenses, I'll sing it from the rooftops for them.

Specifically, the grant is promoted as being to the community of Open Source developers, but its terms restrict it to software that is under a license that is unique to Solaris. The Linux developers, who use a different license, can be sued for using the same patents. And Sun attempts to tell us how charitable a community member they are for doing this. It has a deceptive flavor that sticks in the craw of many Open Source developers.

Bruce

A good business strategy.

[john_anderson_ii]

Unfortunately I see it as a gimmick.

Let's look at Sun's Open Source strategy:
You can take OpenSolaris source code and modify it. You cannot take OpenSolaris patented concepts and place them into other works OSS or otherwise. If things pan out for Sun that means they will have a large developer base dumping code into Solaris, which will make Solaris better and more competitive. Sun basically just improved Solaris with no R&D by leveraging the OSS community. It appears, as of now, that Sun is in this for free skilled labor and nothing else. They are trying to have their cake (revenues from Solaris) and eat it to (no competing products resulting from Open Solaris concepts because of patent issues). The open code without the freedom from patents is like saying "Hey, developers, help me make a buck off this OS by contributing your code for free."

It doesn't take a zealot or a great deal of common sense to notice this. I say let Sun do it, and when they don't attract the huge developer base they hoped to attract maybe they will rethink their OSS approach.

Re:He's pretty much right

[Bruce Perens]

Dear AC,

This is a case where using an idea from the code you read can hurt you. Cut and paste is necessary to infringe on copyright, only use of a similar algorithm is necessary to infringe a patent.

Bruce

Re:He's right!

[sloanster]

Only with an Open Source zealot can he look a gift horse in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the giver for not putting in platinum with extra dental service for life like he wanted.

Let's break it down for you. To use your analogy, Sun gives itself a gift horse, and shows it to the open source community.

Sun: "see all these gold teeth?"

Open Source Community: (shrugs) "They're OK I guess..."

Sun: "I'll let you take a closer look at these teeth, study them, and improve upon them by redesigning/refactoring them, and improving the manufacturing process if you sign up for our special license!"

Open source community: "Oh, so we can look at the design of the teeth, think about how we've managed our own horse's teeth, and contribute our best ideas and work hard to improve your horses, is that it?"

Sun: "Of course, won't that be fun?"

Open Source Community: "So, does it work both ways? I mean, we can then think about how you've implemented your horse's gold teeth, and maybe use some of the ideas to improve our own horse's teeth, right?"

Sun: (confers with lawyers, who violently signal a negative response) "Let's not worry about that for now, the main thing is, you can all work hard to make our horse healthy, strong and more popular than ever, and won't that be fun?"

Open Source Community: "So, we are supposed to take up a new hobby, improving your horse's teeth, right? That's cool, we like programming... But just to be clear, are you saying you won't sue us if we use some of the ideas to improve our own horses teeth?"

Sun: (glances at lawyers, who give him dirty looks and pantomime a slicing motion across their throats) "I'm not sure what you're getting at here, and I really don't know what you expect from us. Come on, this is offered in good faith, so just trust me, OK?"

Open Source Community: "Well, that is certainly a great offer, but I think I'll pass for now. I mean, it sounds like a blast and all, but I've got my hands full taking care of my own horses. But hey dude, listen, take care and good luck with it, aight?"

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting old?

[McDutchie]

Whenever RMS is mentioned in an article, some variation of the same old GNU/Linux joke comes up, and invariably gets modded up. This is getting way more tiring than RMS's own harping on adding the GNU/ to Linux. What if we just STFU about it, okay? We know the good man is a dork, now. Let's pay some attention to his points instead; some of them may be worth listening to and even have some importance.

yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time

[ignorant_newbie]

It's easy to ignore what he says, because he's obviously nuts. But, attacking the speaker instead of the argument is a logical fallacy ( ad hominum ).

Often, he's right about things, and this is one of them. Sun is a hardware company, not a software company. they're trying to get the foss community do their software maintenance for them, so they can continue to sell their hardware. They're not, in this case, particapating as equal partners with the foss community ( any more than apple is ), they just want our help with their code.

Re:Interesting discussion point.

[starseeker]

This may not be a strictly relevant point, but I'll bring it up anyway:

What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form? (I'm assuming near zero, since both Solaris and Linux are unix like operating systems. Has anybody with sufficient knowledge actually looked at the patents in question?)

If Sun were worried about killing Linux or other open source software, I don't think they would need to resort to trying to get people to suck in their code and then sue them. In most cases they don't need to waste their time - a simple filing of a patent case, even of no merit whatsoever, is enough to torpedo most open source programs. The options are a) pay up or b) break the patent. Either one takes $$. So why try a bait and switch approach when all they need to do is swing a flyswatter?

The Linux kernel and a few other programs might be able to mount some kind of defense, but if you want to kill the open source movement you don't need to kill the Linux kernel. You just hit the wealth of small, non-funded private projects that make Linux and friends worth using. A kernel is pretty useless by itself. Even if the big projects could survive, open source as such would still die.

Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how the CDDL and the patent "release" does anything except highlight a problem that has always been there and is still there. Twenty useless, indefensible, overly broad patents could conceivably be enough to sink 10,000 open source projects in the wrong hands. And if they go after users it's The End, regardless. Maybe Sun is trying to bait a booby trap here, but I just can't see it. If Sun has those patents, they are a potential headache for Linux no matter what, if they cover things that people might want to include in the kernel. If Sun wants to be a bad guy there is nothing stopping them even without the CDDL. So the upshot is, they're exactly the same problem they were to begin with. Maybe it would be easier to prove patent violation if CDDL code were used, but if matters reach that stage for most open source projects it's already far too late.

your indian replacement thanks you...

[the-build-chicken]

...for your open source contributions that help him undercut your wage.

IBM understands it...you're not winning a war by IBM playing 'nice' with the opensource community. A company will do whatever is profitable. At the moment, IBM get's free code and great PR out of a few token gestures. They they outsource any actual development work to [insert current outsource country here] which use your freely given code to lower their development costs. RMS argues that there is enough money to be made in the service markets to sustain your wages...well, guess what...IBM has been making a pretty spectacular play for that service market for quite some time now...and it's taking your freely given software and using it to increase it's market penetration. Do you really think that 'small developer X' will be able to compete with IBM in the service market? But it's ok, RMS will be safe because he can always make a living on the tour circuit.

Brilliant strategy guys, see you in the soup kitchen line.

Re:your indian replacement thanks you...

[Ur@eus]

Anything else you want to blame on open source while your at it? World hunger? The asian tsunami? Religious bigotry?

Face it, the vast majority indian software developers are doing proprietary software development for US companies, not offering solutions based on open source software. The open source vs properietary software debate has very little to do with outsourcing.

That said outsourcing is not the big bad thing you like to paint it as. Economic growth in Asia hurts America as little as economic growth in Europe after WW2 did, in other words it do not hurt at all, in fact it a positive contribution.

Re:Promised?

[Russ Nelson]

If you say "I'm not going to sue you over X", and then you go ahead and do it, the judge will basically say "If you don't believe yourself, why should we?"
-russ

Re:yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time

[RealAlaskan]

It's easy to ignore what he says, because he's obviously nuts. ...

Often, he's right about things, and this is one of them.

I'd say that he's obviously nuts, in the sense that Martin Luther King was obviously nuts: they both have a single issue that they care passionately about, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Both were/are right. Both were personally offensive enough that some people are still unwilling to forgive them, or accept their positions.

Today, we know that, however offensive MLK and his followers may have been, the Dream in his ``I have a Dream'' speech was worthwhile. There are still way too many people who've never forgiven MLK for being unpopular, and for proving them wrong in their racism.

As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most of his positions, and the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors, who are generally a nasty bunch.

Re:He's pretty much right

[katre]

You're exactly right, they shouldn't be allowed to look. And writers shouldn't be allowed to read Shakespeare, they might steal his plots. And artists can't look at the paintings of Picasso, they might imitate his style. And musicians certainly shouldn't ever listen to anything, they might steal a riff or two! It'd be a terrible world if people could learn from others and be inspired.

Re:I'm Sorry...

[leomekenkamp]

I would not call a person who fights for the freedom of all people 'wacky'.

You lost me with the "now all code should be free without exceptions" bit.

Why? Does not everybody have a right to study and modify the software they run? In our lifetimes we will probably see direct neural interfaces between men and computers; do you want to connect your brain to a piece of software that only the manufacturer knows of what it does? Do you want to be told you cannot 'think' certain thoughts, because they have been patented? These are the things RMS keeps in mind! There is no compromise possible; a user should have certain rights to the code he is running. It's either that, or we might end up being Borg.

Just like you should have unlimited access to what is under the hood of your car, you should have access to what is under the gui of your applications.

Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol

[mooniejohnson]

You bring up a very good point. The same jokes keep getting modded up. Thank god the "Soviet Russia" jokes have been dying off, but it seems that new "jokes" are taking its place. The "Funny" mods should have some kind of "group check" system, so that every "Funny" point is agreed on by 3 or 4 mods. It'd make the really funny stuff stand out, and the lame jokes die off. Or so I hope.

And not for nothing but...

[Ayanami Rei]

It's kind of annoying that Sun decides that nearly EVERYTHING should be done through ifconfig. It's got about 4 different invocation types depending on what you're trying to do...

First you gotta plumb the interface. Then you might enable DHCP or BOOTP with it. Then you might use it to configure trunking or fail-over.

GAAAH.

Linux did one thing right with networking. Different commands that control different interfaces.
iwconfig handles wireless auth and behavior.
ifconfig handles address binding and state.
dhclient handles DHCP control.
some other kernel tools control trunking and packet shaping. etc.

Instead of one hideously long man page. (Shudder)

Re:Interesting discussion point.

[Bruce Perens]

I confirmed with Sun's representative that the patents were only licensed for the CDDL and the OpenSolaris process. The legal text does not yet exist.

Sun has been posturing about Linux in a hostile way for about two years. I think that what we are seeing is the prelude to a patent lawsuit against Linux developers.

Bruce

RMS is on to something..

[Steeltoe]

To properly understand people, it's crucial to see where they're coming from, not brand them as crazy, that's just an easy way to opt out of understanding. I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL.

RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete against copyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.

When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings , who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in some respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.

RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:

1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.

A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.

Back to point #2:

2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.

The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.

Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society - our spirit crushed or perverted into material goal-chasing.

I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?

Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution,