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

In other news...

[mooniejohnson]

In other news, touchdowns scored during SuperBowl, Microsoft releases FUD against Linux, Anonymous Cowards seek First Post, and people complain about poll options.

Just very RMS. ;-)

Re:In other news...

[mooniejohnson]

Actually, I can't give them back. I'm saving up all the seconds I steal to buy you a sense of humor.

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

in the wise words of Admiral Ackbar

[kevinx]

Its a TRAP!

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.

He's pretty much right

[RLiegh]

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.

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: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

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.