Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Computer Associates Pledges to Open Source Patents

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-fear-the-penguin dept.

DigitumDei writes "Systems management vendor Computer Associates International has confirmed that it intends to pledge a number of its patents to the open source community. This is a move by CA to make it clear that they do not intend to use their patents against Linux. They have, however, ruled out any further large scale donation of CA software code to the open source community as they just released the Ingres database management system under an open source license last year."

17 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Patents by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure which "Patents" they're talking about ...

    However ...
    Doesn't it give their other "patents" more credibility ... if we get all excited about this pledge?

    Cheers,
    -- The Dude

  2. Open source is not exclusive to Linux by cobray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Open source runs on Windows too. stop equating open source with Linux (as in dont-fear-the-penguin)

  3. Excellent by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only way the current patent wars are going to end is for more companies to take actions like this.

    They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run than persisting in a petty patent grabbing scheme and trying to crush their competitors with the resulting lawsuits.

    1. Re:Excellent by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But is this an attempt by them to be nice, or is it just a PR move?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Excellent by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There comes a point where you have to say, "Who cares"?

      Seriously, the results are the same regardless of their motives.

      To put in another light: I give you 100 bucks with no strings attached. Am I doing it to be nice, or to show off? Who cares? You have a 100 extra bucks.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    3. Re:Excellent by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I highly doubt that there are no strings attached. The only sure way to do that would be to put it into public domain. As long as they own the IP rights, there's a pretty big rope attached actually. We are going to get sucked into using patented software. Very dangerous indeed. If you want to be lulled to sleep by this, please be sure to sleep with one eye open. We are letting Linux get pulled into a legal quagmire. I urge all of you to watch carefully.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Excellent by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm referring to software. Money is not the primary driving force in open source, software is. I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers with threats of patent lawsuits.

  4. what kind of license? by ecklesweb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I presume that to "pledge" a patent to the open source community, one could do one of two things: either contribute the patent to the public domain, or license it in some way. I would be surprised if they put it in the public domain, because then competitors could use it for closed source projects.

    The question then becomes, what does the license look like that pledges patents to the "open source community" as opposed to the community at large? What kind of restrictions will be placed on the use of the patent under the license?

  5. And Symantec takes the low road... by mattspammail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Symantec should follow suit. Not that viruses are the central focus they once were.

    --
    Now accepting PayPal donations!
  6. Ingres by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Speaking of which, anyone using that? The user's email list looks a little quiet...

    --
    The Army reading list
  7. GPL patent anyone? by coolcold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the GPL patent can only used with other GPL patented product. In this case, commercial product with patent in would not be able to use it :)

    when would microsoft open up their patent?

    --
    I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
  8. Two camps by ites · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The IT industry is really splitting into two opposing camps. OTOH we have those who believe technology should be expensive and lucrative. OTOH we have those who believe technology is sliding down the commodity curve and that the future lies in services.

    It's pretty clear which companies are on each side. With this statement, CA position themselves on the "sliders" side along with IBM, Novell, and the free/open source community.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  9. IBM, CA, whos next? by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After IBM its CA now. This is wonderful. If all the corporates decide to open up their patents, code and other intellectual property we would be living in a better world. Eveyone benefits: 1. Corporates get great community support 2. Application get enhancements and maintainance at super speed 3. Communities get source and rights for further development 4. Consumers get great products and services Microsoft, are you listening?

    --
    fuvoo: watch something
  10. Public Domain? by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Companies which get "defensive" patents to protect themselves from a bigger, more agressive, richer company seem to be merely an altruistic charade. If the owners ever get tempted by the money, then it will be enforced.

    If a company had no desire to ever enforce the patent, then turn it over to the public domain. You'd still create the legal precedent that allows your products to exist.

    If a company holds on to the patent, it's simply to be able to pull it out of popular use at a later time (no matter who cooperative they seem now).

    If a patent becomes the shoulders for your patent or product to stand on, then you're setting yourself up for a fall no matter how solid that ground seems now.

  11. Tentative, sorta really maybe by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:
    "It's the plan," den Hartog said. "I know he [Swainson] has worked on the preliminary work to get that done."

    Not much accomplished on this yet. This seems like a feeler.

    That said, it's only a pledge, when done.
    A promise, only.

    It would be nice to see something binding on this, or to see the end of software patents altogether.

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  12. Before we praise CA too much... by Pionar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see what the patents are first. If they're patents for outdated, obsolete methods, then so what. If they're patents for useful stuff, then game on!

  13. This is why I hate the term "IP" by penix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...reduce the groundswell of the anti IP movement..."

    The term "Intellectual Property" is the most devious of terms. It implies assigned value to ideas and then further goes on to try to restrict who can "own" those ideas. It also blurs 4 distinct areas of law that should never be blurred. Patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret. So to clarify this "anti IP movement" is really about getting rid of the notion that ideas can be thought of only by one entity and only controlled by one entity. A culture stagnates when ideas and though processes are stifled.

    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.