Slashdot Mirror
Computer Associates Pledges to Open Source Patents
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."
Let me be the first to say..well done CA!
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
I'm not sure which "Patents" they're talking about ...
... ... if we get all excited about this pledge?
However
Doesn't it give their other "patents" more credibility
Cheers,
-- The Dude
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.
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?
Symantec should follow suit. Not that viruses are the central focus they once were.
Now accepting PayPal donations!
Speaking of which, anyone using that? The user's email list looks a little quiet...
The Army reading list
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
As the patent holder, they could even license these patents to open source projects only and ban the patents from any non-open source project (e.g. not let Microsoft incorporate these patents into their closed source software).
While open source (and free software) makes up a large proportion of software, it is by no means the total of it. So this isn't terminating a patent right, because the patents will still be enforced against, for example, proprietary software.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Slashdot: And what number would that be?
CA Spokesperson: Zero!
Unknown host pong.
As it happens, the press release from CA has a slight mistake in it. Instead of pledging to "open source patents", CA pledges to "patent open source". We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Sincerely Yours,
John Swainson
CEO Computer Associates International
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.
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
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.
Part of me would like to think that CA did this for purely good reasons, but I suspect there is a practical reason behind this.
Many companies donate patents (intellectual property) to non-profit institutions for tax cut purposes. A company can "claim" a value of $x for the patents that it knows it will never use or find a license for, and give them to a university or non-profit as a charitable donation, in effect lowering their tax bill which improves their earnings per share. This is done in the chemical industry all the time.
So we should look at the patents being donated - are they really key patents, or extra patents that cover some niche or really should have never been issued in the first place? I'm betting that none of these patents really prevent the open source community from doing anything currently, and their release is probably a tax-cut plan for CA.
I'd love to be wrong though.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!