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."
I think it's a great thing Sun has done for the community, regardless of the feelings some people have for them. It's definitely got a positive spin on it, and hopefully will result in more open source software.
Basically, RMS argues that the Sun announcement offers 1600 patents for CDDL (their license for OpenSolaris) and doesn't clearly state that they are opening their portfolio to all free software licenses.
If they do that: Great. If they don't: That's not so good, Al.
Join the Free Software Foundation
How about the Open Source community just not immediately trusting gifts given?
There seems to be this view that if someone offers a gift, then being suspicious of their motives is bad.
Slashdot commentators are very bad at analogies, so I won't break that tradition with this one:
Various charities, such as greenpeace etc, are very wary about companies wanting to talk to them and/or give them gifts. Because often the companies then turn around and claim they are 'working with' greenpeace etc, without actually doing anything.
What truly scares me is the lack of long-term thinking among some open source projects that I keep track of with regards to the CDDL. The best example I can give is that I was reading the forums over at the ReactOS project; and OpenSolaris was mentioned. IIRC, No-one in the entire thread (which was about using some of OS in ROS) mentioned the patent angle...and given that ROS could easily be shut down over it, that omission alarmed me.
OpenSolaris (Or any CDDL project) is a torpedo waiting to sink any GPL project whose members happen to think about looking at CDDL code.
RMS is right on this, and he should be; he crafted the GPL during the days when reading AT&T code carried similar considerations.
software patents are the major threat to anyone in the software business who doesn't have a 7 figure bank account. And he is not allowing any distracting moves (such as open-sourcing Solaris) to change his fight against them.
What is the point of open-sourcing Solaris (read free as in freedom) if we can't be sure of using the code that has been "opened" to further the open-source movement? Sun must open its software patents in order to do this.
Funny how few people have actually looked at what IBM is really providing. I fail to see (for example) how useful a patent for a tamper proof set screw will be useful to opensource programmers, nor how licensing patents set to expire in a year or two is really being as gracious as IBM would like people to think.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary.
As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
RMS doesn't mind things not being GPL, in fact in many circumstances he supports it. He openely supported making the Ogg codecs BSD/MIT style licensed for instance. What he is blasting is Sun pretending do to one thing (give patents use rights to open source community) while actually doing another thing (promising not to sue Solaris developers)
Actually, you're wrong. 'Promissory estoppel' is the legal terminology in a number of english-speaking countries for promises which DO hold up in court. There are a number of circumstances where if I say 'You can do X without me suing you' then I legally can't sue you for X.
IANAL (yet). This is not legal advice.
You are right in that donative promises are generally not enforceable in court. However, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance."
Specifically, if I make an unenforcable donative promise to you, and you reasonably and foreseeably rely on that promise, the courts will step in and enforce that promise.
The textbook example of reliance is a company that promises a worker a pension in return "for the consideration of his many years of previous service." The problem is that prior consideration (in this case the previous years of service) can not be bargained for, and we fail to have a binding contract here since consideration is offered by the company (the pension) in exchange for no consideration by the worker.
However, due to the equitable principle of reliance, if the worker retires (which would be reasonable and foreseeable) the courts will enforce the promised pension.
So, if Sun publicly promised to not sue open / free software projects for using their patents, you reasonably and foreseeably rely upon that promise to use their patents in a open / free software project, and Sun sued you or others for patent infringement, the courts could be reasonably expected to enforce Sun's earlier promise.
Remember though, that Sun has not promised to not sue you for using their patents outside the CDDL, and even if they did you might have to pay a lawyer to get a court to enforce said promise.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Mr. Stallman doesn't seem upset with Sun so much as with the whole problem of software patents (which is a much more sensible position.)
Let me say it again for those who won't read the article - IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not Sun releases these patents. ANYBODY with a patent and no sense of ethics can do incalcuable damage to the free software movement. Even if sun broadened it's release to include all open source licenses, 1,600 is just a few leaves in a forest. And personally I wouldn't consider Sun's hands to be the most dangerous. Suppose Microsoft hires itself a few proxies with big patent portfoilos to sue every small to medium size open source project they can find, and all users they can track down? Sun's patent release doesn't do ANYTHING about that problem, and that is the real problem here.
Sun is unlikely to do anything so rash - they don't dominate the market and can't affort to become the next SCO in public relations. Microsoft can, and it can even more so afford for hired flunkie companies to be reviled.
Patents are far and away the most dangerous threat to open source software. But, to be a bit fatalistic, I think if the large corporations get serious about killing open source, nothing will save it. If nothing else, they could try to buy some laws making giving away software for free illegal, because it is unfair competition. The biggest problem with enemies is that they are your enemy. They will not stop until you are dead, and how you die is of no importance. The specifics don't matter - the fact someone wants you dead is enough to seal your fate unless you can either change their minds or force them to back off. I don't know how open source can do either, at least in the US, where money is everything.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"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."
Having lost touch with reality generally lowers your credibility considerably. I've had the interesting experience of meeting RMS once. His coding prowess speaks for itself but the man has the social skills of a gnat.
If something is said he doesn't agree with he won't debate it, he'll deny it. (I was the only person dressed in a suit at a programmer's society meeting he did his little saint speil at, since I'd just come from work. I asked how you answer when someone says GNU/Linux is not user friendly. He simply denied the problem existed, and tried to make me feel stupid for asking it. In other words his solution to user support is the classic RTFM. In any case, to him I was obviously someone evil in a suit).
In short this is not a man you want speaking as the advocate for your favourite cause. All he'll do is put people off side and do more harm than good. I have little time for him as a speaker and feel he should go back to coding, which he's very good at.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Who here is sick and tired of companies taking something made by others and proclaiming it as their own?
Who here is sick and tired of companies lying about what they release to the public in order to hoodwink fanboys?
Aside from those, I personally am sick and tired of so-called intellectual property. Patents and copyrights have become so abused that we have reached the point where the goal of stimulating the economy would be better served by getting rid of copyrights and patents altogether.
Infuriate left and right