Nokia Announces Patent Support to the Linux Kernel

Mictian writes "In conjunction with the introduction of Nokia's Linux Handheld mentioned earlier today, Nokia Corporation announced today that it allows all its patents to be used in the further development of the Linux Kernel. Nokia says, that it believes that open source software communities, like open standards, foster innovation and make an important contribution to the creation and rapid adaptation of technologies. And that the investment made by so many individuals and companies in creating and developing the Linux Kernel and other open source software deserve a framework of certainty."

Comments

Good game Nokia!

[zoloto]

Nokia, therefore, issues the legally binding Patent Statement, which has been posted on its website at www.nokia.com/iprstatements. The Patent Statement applies to Nokia's patents infringed by current official releases of the Linux Kernel and all future official releases of the Linux Kernel to the extent that Nokia has not declared new functionality embodied in such releases to be outside the scope of the Patent Statement. With respect to new functionality introduced into future Linux Kernel releases, Nokia reserves the right to declare that the Patent Statement shall not apply.

I'd like to be the first to applaud Nokia. This certainly will win many people over into development circles with their technology and without the fear of litigation that's obvious within OSS development, this will welcome innovation, change and support in ways that aren't available to the traditional software company.

The above statement made in bold is what worries me, however. What kind of allowance by way of announcement will be made for allowing certain new functionality? Is this a COA statement made so that they can keep their investors/company happy and alive or something else?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Triumph The Insult C]

why give them credit? what about openbsd and freebsd? they borrowed heavily from them for ipso

sure, this is a step, but it's very small. i would give them a lot of credit if they came out and said "we're never going to sue anyone infringing on our software patents"

Re:Good game Nokia!

[garcia]

Perhaps they want to CTA in case something gets into the kernel that they really can't allow (i.e. something that depends on something that was patented by someone else or protected by a contract)?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'll be the second :)

Seriously, though, I think this is a good thing for us all. I doubt they ever had any intention of litigating against Linux to begin with, they might be able to construe this as some form of donation (or just plain old goodwill on the balance sheet--I'm suddenly feeling more likely to choose Nokia products, all other things being equal), it allows the Linux developers access to more technology without so much worry about accidentally infringing some screwball patent no one has ever heard of, and by helping Linux, they help all users of it (including themselves).

Oh, and they get free publicity :) I wonder who else will join suit? Lots of major technology companies have already placed bets on Linux, so it's not like it makes sense for any company that actually produces products to litigate against Linux.

Actually, what would be really cool is if all code put under GPL-like licenses (e.g. this code may be freely used, and all derivatives of it must retain this freedom) were somehow immunized from patents. After all, what better promotes the advancement of Useful Arts & Sciences?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[AaronGTurner]

As I read it it means that anything that is infringing now in the kernel is fine, and those same infringements in future kernels are also fine, but that new things introduced into the kernel may or may not be fine.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[GoCoGi]

I'm sure this is 100% correct, but they define linux kernel as "released from kernel.org, stable, GPL".
Any kernel modified by someone else (RedHat, gentoo-sources, ...) does not seem to match the definition.
If mainline includes patented ideas, they will go into the modified distribution-kernels as well.
They can (could) be sued.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Sancho]

But Gentoo, for example, just automates downloading and patching the source. Unless they were using patented tech in the patch, it would seem that this should fall under the umbrella.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

To summarize (with a few simplifications):
1. Nokia gives up enforcement of all current patents against all current and past Linux kernels.
2. For new features in future Linux kernels, Nokia gives up those same patents unless it announces otherwise within 120 days of that kernel's release.
3. But, if some one else asserts their patents against the Linux kernel, then Nokia can use its patents to go after that person.
4. Nokia makes no promises about future patents (that are filed after the end of 2005).

YIIAPLBIANYPL. GYOGDPL. YMNO.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, what good is GPLed code that's covered by patents? Even if the kernel has a license to use a patent, doesn't that effectively prevent the GPLed code from being used elsewhere?

Probably people should be wary of this, and if anything only take it as a mild reprieve from lawsuits from Nokia. Don't go out of your way to incorporate Nokia's patents, because they could very well make your GPL licensing meaningless as nobody can reuse the code legally anyway.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[VStrider]

I 've beat you to it by 3 hours. :)

Re:Good game Nokia!

[RealAlaskan]

Well, it's not so good as all that, I think.

You can't take a routine from the kernel and use it in some other GPL'd program, because Nokia's Patent Statement would not apply. That sort of defeats one (at least one!) of the purposes of the GPL, doesn't it? What about code that starts out in some other GPL'd program, like emacs or kde? It's definitely not covered by their Patent Statement, unless it's already in the kernel, and then only for use in the kernel.

As for their reserving the right to enforce patents against future kernel features, I'm sure that boils down to something like this: ``If Linux starts to cut into our revenues, watch out!''

As I've said in another post, what we need from them is an irrevokable license to use their patents in any GPL'd program. This isn't that, but it costs us nothing, so we should say thanks, and get on with what we were doing, because nothing has changed.

Before the announcement, they weren't suing anyone, though they might have chosen to in the future. After the announcement, they aren't suing anyone, though they might choose to in the future. It is a nice goodwill gesture, but nothing has changed.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[njchick]

Also, code taken from the kernel to other projects is not fine. IANAL, but I guess it means that Linux itself cannot be distributed under GPL, because GPL doesn't allow any limitations on the right to reuse the code.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

why give them credit? what about openbsd and freebsd?

The BSD license allows the code to be used in proprietary closed-source software where Nokia wouldn't be able to make much use of it. It just doesn't make much sense to a commercial undertaking like Nokia to engage in this sort of "I give and my competitors take take take" licensing.

With the GPL the code can be used inhouse by others without distributing it but it can't be used as the basis of a competitors closed product. If the competitor is willing to release their code under the GPL then it adds into the overall pool that Nokia can draw upon.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, what good is GPLed code that's covered by patents? Even if the kernel has a license to use a patent, doesn't that effectively prevent the GPLed code from being used elsewhere?

If the patent would prevent other people from using their full rights under the GPL then section 7 of the GPL says that the kernel cannot be distributed while those conditions apply i.e. the patented methods would have to be removed or licensed freely enough that the full GPL provisions would apply.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[AuMatar]

It would be nice to see them make it a general GPL-wide grant. Or, by distributing linux (do they?) under the GPL and granting linux these patents are they doing so by default?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I've said in another post, what we need from them is an irrevokable license to use their patents in any GPL'd program.

Lacking such a license section 7 of the GPL would prevent distribution of the code under the GPL at all. These sorts of limited patent grants are not consistent with the GPL. Given that Nokia themselves distribute GPL software in their products, they have to either make a full patent grant covering all uses of the GPLd code or else cease and desist their infringing activities.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Derek Pomery]

Hm? GPL is copyright law.
Patent law is another matter.
If they decide to prosecute any use of linux for patent infringement, that has nothing to do with the GPL.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they decide to prosecute any use of linux for patent infringement, that has nothing to do with the GPL.

They only have permission to distribute the code (permission which they have to have due to copyright law) on the condition that they do "not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".

Whether such restrictions are based on copyrights or patents or contracts is irrelevant. If they are imposing further restrictions then they do not have any legal authority to distribute the code.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

what about openbsd and freebsd?

Ask any bsd'er whether companies should give anything back and they'll tell you how they're just happy as long as their code is being used.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[mormota]

Finally! With Nokia patents we can produce Linux branded rubber boots with unmatched quality :-)

Sign me up as a beta tester, my size is 44!

Re:Good game Nokia!

[RealAlaskan]

Given that Nokia themselves distribute GPL software in their products, they have to either make a full patent grant covering all uses of the GPLd code or else cease and desist their infringing activities.

This doesn't apply to all GPL'd programs everywhere, but only to the GPL'd program which they distribute, and only if it includes the particular patent in question. That is, if they distribute the kernel, but not kde, they can't enforce the patent against the kernel, but could enforce the same patent against kde (assuming that kde violated the same hypothetical patent).

The pertinent portion of the GPL says:

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

So, if you're distributing the kernel, your enforcement of your patents can't restrict distribution of copies of that program (notice the GPL doesn't mention derivitives here). You could certainly take patent enforcement actions which restricted distribution of other programs which you were not distributing. That would include, I think, derivatives you didn't distribute. remember, the only stick the GPL has is the potential loss of the right to redistribute. Back to my example of the kernel and kde, if you aren't distributing kde, you've nothing to lose by restricting the distribution of kde, even though you distribute the kernel.

In fact, if Nokia distributes the kernel but little else that is GPL'd, I think we've found the reason for this peculiar action. I'll bet that the kernel they distribute comes from a source which is best described like this:

"Linux Kernel" means any version of the Linux kernel which (i) is released as "stable version", (ii) is licensed under the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 for the Linux operating system" and (iii) has been published by the Kernel.org Organization, Inc on its Linux Kernel Archive website at www.kernel.org.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[AaronGTurner]

Does the GPL specifically indicate that no limitations should be placed on reuse of any portions of the code? I presume it does, which would mean that Nokia's statement would mean that the Linux kernel could not be distributed under the GPL, and given that it contains GPL code it could not not be distributed under the GPL. I.e. deadlock.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that Nokia's patent grant basically has no effect (since the patents still can't be used in the kernel under the GPL)?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Should Nokia be aware that if the restriction is such that the infringement is allowed only if the infringing code is used in Linux then it represents an additional condition that would result in violation of the GPL? It's the point when we need Bruce Perens to chime in with his better understanding of the GPL.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you're distributing the kernel, your enforcement of your patents can't restrict distribution of copies of that program (notice the GPL doesn't mention derivitives here).

It doesn't need to mention derivatives there; you quoted an example, hence the words "for example".

Note that section 6 prohibits any additional restrictions, and ther GPL explicitly permits derivatives of the code being redistributed.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

The pertinent part would be "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." The fact that it follows that with an example doesn't override the actual licese conditions.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[mickwd]

Aren't Nokia one of the major companies pressing for the legalisation of Software Patents in the EU ?

This would seem like a bit of PR aimed primarily at that process. They're trying to say to the EU politicians: "We (want | need | will-go-out-of-business-without) software patents, and we know you've had lots of complaints from the open-source crowd, but look, their little toy that is generating so much interest among you is safe from us. So if you can now please ignore the open-source crowd's complaints about Software Patents".

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Dasch]

sure, this is a step, but it's very small.

I beg to differ; this serves to bolster the legal foundation of Linux, which imho is one of the most crucial tasks if we are to spread our beloved OS to the mainstream.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Aneurysm9]

Nokia isn't placing restrictions on code they have licensed under the GPL, nor are they placing additional restrictions on other people's code. What they've done is simply say that they will not sue anyone for using their patents in the Linux kernel. They make no promises with respect to other projects. That is no different that the status quo ante where those products that took from the kernel were subject to infringement claims from Nokia. There are no additional restrictions on distribution or use, simply no guarantee that you won't be sued if you take code to another project that Nokia hasn't promised not to sue.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[Anonymous Coward]

The pertinent part would be "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."

I think that pretty well makes my point: the license only gives the distributor the right to distribute the Program, and the only thing that the license can do is revoke his right to redistribute the Program, if he imposes further restrictions.

Therefore, a distributor of the kernel could use his patents to restrict distribution of kde, without jeopardising his right to distribute the kernel. That was my point.

Section six comes closer to requiring that any patent license apply to derivitives.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Still, hindering distribution of a derviative via patent enforcement suit is one thing, and refusing to grant a patent license to allow use of the derivative might be quite another thing. After all, the right to redistribute is the only ``right granted herein''. That might be one for the courts.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[dunng808]

The GPL takes its power from copyright law. This is a patent issue. AFAIK, for patents there is no equivalent to the GPL. Actions such as this may lead to the solution.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[vettemph]

>sure, this is a step, but it's very small.

It's one thing to say "I forgive your for killing 5 people."

It's yet another to forgive someone for all the killing they might do in the future along with who they might kill.

What would you do as a business? ...as a person?

As long as they issue a statement like this once in a while we won't get to far into something we can't easily get out of.

Personaly though, I think Nokia is just trying to fend of the WinCE folks by attracting "us". Good job N. In your face MS! ;)

Re:Good game Nokia!

[forkazoo]

I agree. I assume this is simply a CYA measure to prevent abuse. Otherwise, somebody would fork a kernel-kicthensink branch, and merge video en-/de-coding, deCSS, GIF compression, and everything else that might be covered by a apatent into some sort of crazy uberkernel. Multimedia projects could then throw out their code, and take the code from the protected kernel (which would be the same code, anyway) and declare themselves safe from Nokia and anybody who might follow in their footsteps.

Then, when Nokia realises they have some obscure patent on sending video to a cell phone, it would be harder to stop the open-source clone.

Also, if they patent something related to their cell phones, they might want to stop people from writing a fullfeatured driver for linux, which unlocks all sorts of features that are only supported in the expensive version of the phone.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[mollog]

To me, the story here is about the ever-increasing trend of companies toward opening up their licenses to the public. I seem to recall that this was the trend early in the PC and small computer life. The operating system that Microsoft eventually controlled was an 'open source' OS. And Unix was also open early in its life. And the 'killer app' that made PC's valuable, Visicalc, was also open source.

I wonder where the world would be today if that trend had continued. I think we would be much farther along in the digital revolution. It's clear that software hasn't kept up with the evolution of hardware, at least until recently.

It's heartening to see companies like Nokia, IBM, Novell, Sun and many others embrace open source.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[zoloto]

wow. good game indeed.
good minds think alike?

~z

Re:Good game Nokia!

[sisa]

I think that Nokia had to add the exclusion that their policy does not apply outside the Linux Kernel. Otherwise any of their competitors in mobile handsets or networks would use this as a loophole to be able to use Nokia's software patents for free by first introducing needed functionality (the patented issue) in the Linux Kernel. Easiest way to do this might be some obscure device driver.

I see this as a positive development as previously Nokia has not had such a good track record when it comes to software patents.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[dolmen.fr]

It also means that kernels distributed by vendors (including Nokia itself) are not covered by this statement.
But, who is using just the official kernels now?

So, how is it useful from a legal point of view?

Re:Good game Nokia!

[NickFortune]

Who is "they" in this case? Nokia? The kernel maintainers? Other non-kernal GPL coders? The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

If "they" are Nokia, then "they" are not donating code, they are donating patents for the use of the Linux Kernel. No code donated means no restriction imposed.

If "they" are the collective kernel hackers, then "they" own the copyright of the code and can distribute under whatever licence they so choose. The impose no limitations beyond the GPL because none are imposed upon them.

If "they" are non kernel GPL coders then "they" can indeed use the code under the terms of the GPL. However in this case, Nokia have not promised not to sue them if they feel one of their patents has been infringed upon.

In the third case, the situation is unchanged from before Nokia donated the patents to the kernel. They have aright to the code but may yet get sued for using it under patent law.

This is, of course, what makes software patents so dangerous, since it holds the potential to make it illegal for us to profit from code we worked hard to create.

It is also an illustration of why it is so important reject the notion of "intellectual property". There are a number of different mechanisms at work here, each of which works differently. To make the mistake to lumping them under a common term is to engender confusion in your own mind when you think on the subject.

Banish the notion of intellectual property from your mind, and think clearly upon the subjects of copyright and patents. Not to mention trade secrets and whatever other mechanisms may exist to restrict the flow and/or implementation of ideas.

Which patents is linux infringing upon?

[Agelmar]

According to the article, "The Patent Statement applies to Nokia's patents infringed by current official releases of the Linux Kernel..."

I'm personally wondering which patents they claim were being infringed upon. Are there legitimate patent concerns, or is this Nokia trying to position themselves for something else? Neither the liked article or the press release (http://www.nokia.com/iprstatements) mention any specific patents.

Re:Which patents is linux infringing upon?

[fbjon]

There need not be any either. Either way, if such are known, or if any should exist and be found, they are no longer any concern; that's the point of this statement.

Re:Which patents is linux infringing upon?

[MynockGuano]

Sounds more to me like a blanket statement meant to cover any use whatsoever of their patented stuff, and not necessarily declaring that there is any in the kernel. Retroactive absolution, so to speak, to clarify that any and all currently Nokia-patented stuff in the kernel, whether its there already or put in in the future, is protected from litigation.

Re:Which patents is linux infringing upon?

[Famatra]

"Or is this Nokia trying to position themselves for something else?" I think that Nokia and Microsoft did not get a long , and are in competition for various operating system for mobile devices, esp. phones. I think Nokia's thinking, and IBM's too, is that they will do better if Microsoft is wounded or defeated, they'll all divide up the corpse among the players left standing. Plus since the Linux community is doing the work in developing it, it costs them little to lend their patents to Linux.

Re:Which patents is linux infringing upon?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely patent would be for DRM rubbish, or some claim on VOIP.

It could also be an ambit claim for crypto, funky compression codecs, some sort of speech recoginition, or something to do with power saving. Sure, there are secret 'pcanywhere' diagnostic things lurking within, but this is just an offshoot of the hardware. The GPL/OpenBSD software has all that functionality - except for DRM.

Memo. The phone is a very old invention, nothing is new here, move along. Dick Tracey wristwatches and Get Smart shoephones are old hat. Adding a PDA MP3 player, camera GPS, TV and a playstation, fingerprint scanner, dogtrainer and mace sprayer, vending machine vehicle swiss army knife and more to a phone is not novel.

The truth and profitability in Nokia is because it made good reliable phones that were more stylish and smaller than most - software patents are nil, or locked against hardware, and the charger kept the same wallwart charger jack from model to model.

Having chosen to outsource to China and others, scarcity profits sunk into commodity and contract pushing, plus a who had the most annoying tunes game.

Nokia, how about GPL'ing software and firmware as well?

Fantastic!

[coop0030]

This is some great news!

I'm sure Nokia has hundreds of patents that could be useful for open source developers!

Let's get working on those, eh?

(I'll help once I understand the patents)

Re:Fantastic!

[JoshRosenbaum]

I'm sure Nokia has hundreds of patents that could be useful for open source developers!

This will only be of use to open source developers of the Linux Kernel. It is not for all of Linux.

Re:Fantastic!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't great news, "no software patents" is great news. This is a token gesture that they leverage when lobbying in favour of software patents in Europe. A shrewd and cynical PR move that only suckers will lap up.

Re:Fantastic!

[RealAlaskan]

This will only be of use to open source developers of the Linux Kernel.

And only for the things they've already done. And only if those things were in the right stable kernel as of 25 May 2005. And only if those developers don't try to enforce any of their patents against Nokia.

So, ok, that last one doesn't seem so unreasonable. The first two restrictions make this whole thing a non-event. Before this, no one was undergoing a patent lawsuit from Nokia, though some might have worried about future lawsuits. After this, no one is undergoing a patent lawsuit from Nokia, though some might worry about future lawsuits.

Thanks, Nokia, but excuse me if I go back to sleep.

Kind of vague first baby step

[A nonymous Coward]

It doesn't say GPL, so it probably can't actually add any code to the kernel.

It only applies to current patents, and (IIRC) current interpretations of those patents.

But at least it sounds good enough to whack Redmond.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[Prospero's Grue]

It's a bold statement in principle, even if it hedges a little in practice... I still say they're deserving of some kudos from the Linux and OSS crowd.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[AaronGTurner]

AFAIK the GPL refers to copyright on code, not patents. However code that contains an implementation of a patented process, method, etc., may run into problems, at least in certain jurdisdictions, that would make distribution under the GPL difficult or impossible. But the patent itself cannot be GPLed or anything like that.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[MynockGuano]

Patents cover ideas, not code. The statement means that if Nokia has a concept patented that would be beneficial to have in the kernel, the developers can write it and include it without fear of litigation. The fact that this is a concern in the first place is the basis for the outcries against software patents.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[diakka]

The kernel is GPL and licensing software under the GPL implies that you are granting the rights to any applicable patents to any GPL or derivative code.

So if you grant your patents to one GPL project, you're granting your patents to any GPL project.

IANAL, of course, so I may be falsly assuming that a logical argument would stand up legally.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[RealAlaskan]

The statement means that if Nokia has a concept patented that would be beneficial to have in the kernel, the developers can write it and include it without fear of litigation.

Eh, not quite.

It means that if they wrote it into the kernel, and it was in the right stable kernel before 25 MAy 2005, they need not fear litigation. Anything which didn't make the magic deadline in the magic line of kernels still carries the same old fear of litigation it always did.

This is a free pass for some (but not all) hypothetical existing infringements in one GPL'd program. All infringements in any other GPL'd programs and all new infringements in the kernel are not covered by it.

My guess is that since Nokia couldn't find a good patent lawsuit against the kernel developers, they've contrived a great way to get some cheap PR from the current lack of meaningful infringement.

The fact that this is a concern in the first place is the basis for the outcries against software patents.

Preach on, brother MynockGuano! What a pity there's no one listening but the choir. You're right, but until your legislators hear it from names like IBM and Nokia, nothing's going to happen.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[fymidos]

I don't think that the developers can use all of nokia patents from now on. As i read the statement, patents that are used today are ok, but for anything new in the kernel, they keep the right to sue. Even if the patent they claim is older than the statement.

A scary thought is that they (or their successors etc..) can go to the judge with the line "we gave them all those patents, but they want everything, not fair"

I believe they meant good, but they need to clarify it. A simple "we will never sue linux kernel developers or users over patent infrigment" will do.

The part about other parties asserting its patents against linux was fine though.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[Anonymous Coward]

Derivative code yes, other GPL'd code no. Please re-read the GPL before making false statements.

Way to go Nokia

[theskullboy]

Now if only all other big corporations will follow its lead...

Re:Way to go Nokia

[m85476585]

Microsoft will be the last to.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Please don't be such a sheep and read the Nokia blurb:

With respect to new functionality introduced into future Linux Kernel releases, Nokia reserves the right to declare that the Patent Statement shall not apply.

In short, Nokia says "we give you a new toy today, but we can always take it away from you later". Which means neither Linus or anybody else should touch it...

Re:Way to go Nokia

[PornMaster]

Isn't that a way to say, "Hey, as far as we're concerned, anything of ours already in there is fine" as a way to put people at ease over possible infringement already in the kernel, and not so much a license to glom from them in the future?

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a great move from Nokia: they get to use F/OSS work designed around/with their patents, and they get PR time, but they don't actually *give* anything back. Nokia: 1, community: 0.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[RealAlaskan]

In short, Nokia says "we give you a new toy today, but we can always take it away from you later".

I think that's not quite true. I think that Nokia has declared that all current infringements are ok, but future infringements are going to be looked at case by case, with the expectation (no guarantees!) that they'll be ok'd.

They lead off with:

Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005.

This is a long way from what we need, which is a non-revokable license for use in all GPL'd software. Still, the little they are giving us is non-revokable (I think), and it's more than they had to give us.

... neither Linus or anybody else should touch it ...

There's really not much to touch. It boils down to: ``We won't sue Linus for anything he's done so far.'' There's no requirement for Linus (or anybody else) to reciprocate in any way.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[fbjon]

Exactly. All patent disputes up to this point - existing, nonexisting or otherwise - are hereby void. The future is still the same.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Oldest European]

In short, Nokia says "we give you a new toy today, but we can always take it away from you later". Which means neither Linus or anybody else should touch it...

What else or better could Nokia do?

Nothing right now, I think, because they don't have any control about where the Linux development is going and so they need to protect themselves.

What is most interesting about this move is why did they do it?

To me it seems this might be an assault on software patent holders in general, and maybe even Microsoft specificaly.

Sure Nokia must hold thousands of patents. But they are still not a big player in the patent business and they know that they might find themselves in a bad position if software patent laws are introduced in the EU and strengthened elsewhere.

I just wished more companies would realize that if their name isn't Microsoft, IBM or Siemens that they have much more to lose from software patents than to win.

And of course OSS has almost nothing to gain from software patents.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Albinofrenchy]

So much paranoia!

It's an act of good-will obfuscated by legality. They reserve the right, but the spirit of the thing means they probably won't use that clause too much. It is a step in the right direction, and a very bold step at that.

Are we really going to be given an inch and demand a mile?

Re:Way to go Nokia

[cortana]

> What else or better could Nokia do?

Nokia could stop campaigning in favour of software patents in Europe.

> But [Nokia] are still not a big player in the patent business and they know that
> they might find themselves in a bad position if software patent laws are
> introduced in the EU and strengthened elsewhere.

Nokia's pro-swpat lobying efforts say otherwise.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is no software patents, not everyone writes open source software.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[Oldest European]

The soures you provided are all at least one year old.

Do you have any proof that they didn't actually change their policy on software patents?

Because if so it would clearly show that this now is just a lame publicity stunt by Nokia and that one better stays aways from them...

*searching for a pencil to add Nokia to my evil company list*

Re:Way to go Nokia

[cortana]

Yeah, unfortunatly the ffii.org page on them hasn't been updated for a while. But given what they have said and done in the past, unless I see them actively moving against the CIID, they are still on my evil list.

Re:Way to go Nokia

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

So if one of their employees steals a bunch of code and open sources it, Nokia should have their hands tied? There are ways to steal and doublcross even with OSS...

Re:Way to go Nokia

[fymidos]

> Are we really going to be given an inch and demand a mile?

No. That's the point. It's an inch. Nothing changed. People that thought that *now* they can use nokia's patents are mistaken.
What i read from this is: what's done is done. From now on we'll be watching.
Nokia is not giving anything away, most of their software patents up to now will not be considered valid in europe anyway...
But they *are* trying to get EU to accept software patents -- something just doesn't feel right.

WOWZERS!

[sintacks]

So we'll get a product that actually works?! WOW! I'm glad to see companies moving to more flexible solutions.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they believe in open source so much shouldn't that be *any* open source project as opposed to just the linux kernel?

Re:Wait...

[fbjon]

That would be a ridiculously wide statement.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a total fuckwit you are. This has nothing to do with Nokia wanting to be nice to the OSS community. Its about Nokia feathering their own nest. Duh!!

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Insightful! For gods sake mods, its not Insightful, its not even remotly clever.

Just say anything slightly nice about OSS and get modded up.

Well, OSS fucking sucks so mod me down wankers.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what wil stop me from taking any (software) patent from Nokie and adding code based on it to the kernel. It cane be used by any other program then. Right?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that does apply, kind of; anything in the Linux kernel to which a Nokia patent applies can be transfered to other (GPLd) projects (if Nokia tried to prevent this, they couldn't distribute the Linux kernel without being in violation of the GPL).

As Bruce Perens said about IBM's similar action:

[Ubi_NL]

Is this in writing?
Is it in lawyer-compatible writing?
Is it written in a way that they cannot duck out of it Rambus style?

asdf

[mr_tommy]

Of course, Nokia would have done this regardless of the Tablet they launched today, which, as if by coincidence, runs on Linux. And I'm even more certain it has nothing to do with a Nokia need to get some developer enthusiasm behind it's new software base. And it's got nothing to do with the lack of interest in the Symbian OS they've been running their other new phones off. And I'm sure Microsoft shouting about their new Mobile OS has even less to do with this.

Re:asdf

[Pecisk]

Of coarse, it is PR stunt. And I personally won't give a shit about it. It is GOOD to see that Nokia, the mighty gard of it's "intelectual property", trying to build something really USEFUL based on open source. And check out what kind of contributions they got it.

I hope it is some painful, but strong change in trend for Nokia. They won't change their attitude in one day, proposing software patents in EU, but let's cross fingers and hope for the best.

Re:asdf

[Ochu]

Hey, come on, they are a company, with their own interests. Sure, (software) patents suck, but since Nokia has them, they don't really need to give them away. In fact, they very probably would be sued by their shareholders if they just decided to give away a large part of the things that make them a special company...

Yay Nokia

[Hrodvitnir]

So, that means today we like Nokia, right?

At least, until we find out that it's all a bunch of marketing doublespeak.

Re:Yay Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we like Nokia when they start lobbying against software patents in the EU.

Thankyou,

Slashdot groupthink coordinator.

Re:Yay Nokia

[Elektroschock]

In fact Nokia's TIm Frain is a radical software patent evangelist. If Nokia meant it serious they would fire Frain and drop support for EICTA. As this will not happen, I will not thank for any act of grace. But I will not step back from my fight against EU software patenting.

Lever dod as slaav!

What I would like to know ..

[macaulay805]

What I would like to know is what if compainies like X-Stream decide to do what they have been doing and releasing their programs that were once GPLed code. Is Nokia going to go after them or sit by while the OSS community to do something?

Patents

[R.Mo_Robert]

With all the talk of patents here lately, am I the only one who misread this headline and thought that Nokia patented supporting the Linux kernel? Now I've heard it all...

Re:Patents

[m85476585]

I misread it to.

Re:Patents

[uchi]

You are certainly not the only one who misread the title. I read it as "North Korea announces Patent Support to Linux Kernel" as if North Korea wished to lure developers there by claiming that it was the first government to be fully "GPL compliant"

Oh, those crazy north koreans. I guess that is what 1 hour of sleep will do to you.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that is what 1 hour of sleep will do to you.

Wow - I'd hate to see you after 8!

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

What? North Korea is patenting the Linux Kernel?

Re:Patents

[planetoid]

No, but they are patenting the Rinuks Kelner.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

the topic was poorly written, and you seem to have been modded down for simply pointing that out.

I for one, welcome our linux patenting nokia overlords.

Much ado about nothing

[JakusMinimus]

Linux is GPL'd code. Unless Nokia releases all of it's patents to everyone, this statement means nothing. The GPL does not allow for a sleeper patent attachment (one might say viral, oh the irony) such as this.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[slavemowgli]

Actually, it does, simply because the GPL does not say anything about patents at all - remember that copyright and patents are two *very* distinct things.

One might argue that the GPL's prohibition of "further restrictions" applies to patents, so maybe you can't take a piece of GPL'ed software and add code to it that you have a patent on (assuming that you release the new version at all, of course), but IANAL, and it's wholly unclear to me ATM whether that really would be true or not.

But outside of that, there's nothing in the GPL that deals with patents (unless I overlooked something important, of course, but that goes without saying).

Re:Much ado about nothing

[cyberlackey]

Oh snap, it's a legal rootkit! They're installing now!!! Ahh!

Re:Much ado about nothing

[fbjon]

But this is Nokia saying this, not the kernel developers. Does this have no legal meaning simply because the target's licence doesn't allow for this?

Re:Much ado about nothing

[JakusMinimus]

GPL's prohibition of "further restrictions"

This is exactly what I was getting at. The GPL does not allow for anything under it's copyright to propagate anything that would restrict anyone downstream (outside of GPL restrictions obviously!)

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

Sounds to me like Nokia is complying with the license rather than making some grand gesture.

PS - Yes the GPL does talk about patents.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Please actually read the GPL before commenting on it.

And I quote:

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

And from the preamble (which is a required part of the GPL text for inclusion in programs, though I'm not sure whether it's considered a binding part of the contract):

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

That is, once a patent is freely licensed in accordance with the GPL, it must be possible to use that patent for derivative works as well, including future versions of the Linux kernel. This flies in the face of "With respect to new functionality introduced into future Linux Kernel releases, Nokia reserves the right to declare that the Patent Statement shall not apply." It is not a free licensing of the patents involved as required by the GPL.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[albalbo]

> Actually, it does, simply because the GPL does not > say anything about patents at all

Er, yes it does.

Have you actually read the GPL?

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

From the preamble to the GPL:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Man, you are an idiot! Almost as stupid as the mods who believed you. Unless you are a toll, then nice work!

Re:Much ado about nothing

[finnhh]

Before I start, I'm from Finland as you can see from my nick, but have nothing to do with Nokia now or ever.

The statement is some ado about something.

First, it makes clear the Nokias position about Linux, not like SCO who first distributes it and then sues everybody. GPL has a part conserning patents, but this statement makes sure that even if GPL isn't enforceable, there won't be any lawsuits.

Second, it makes clear to other parties that lawsuits against Linux might have repercussions.

If Nokia really had wanted to keep its patents out of Linux it could have done so. The device is pretty useless whitout internet connection. It would have been quite easy to do a device that didnt have Linux or any GPLed code on it but run Linux. Simply do a miniOS that does a Gentoo like install when customer turns the machine on first time. This could have been done on the store counter. Store just gives a free WiFi connection to customers and five minutes later theres a Linux in the machine. Neither store nor Nokia are distributing Linux so no GPL conserns.

So why the limitation to kernel? If it wasn't any patented feature in the kernel could have been copied from the kernel to any product making the patent in effect void.

Syncing

[taskforce]

I'd say this would be a step forward to greater device intergration - an open source of version of a program like iSync with compatibility with propretary methods and cables of syncing data. Maybe a plugin for the new Thunderbird/Lightning project which syncs contacts, dates and messages with Nokia phones?

Re:Syncing

[Sledgy]

I have to agree, I was very frustrated to find that I could not sync my Nokia phone on linux. The USB cable is not supported at all.

Nokia: Bringing the power...

[Qinopio]

So, now Linux will have all the gaming power of the N-Gage?

Where can I get an ISO, I'm switching now.

Just Linux?

[gr8_phk]

What if Linux were to fork? Would the "non-Linux" version be able to use the patents? It just doesn't make sense to grant permission to one project when it's under a GPL license. The whole point of the license is that you can do as you like with the code so long as you offer the same freedom with you redistribution of said code. What if some driver uses their patent and someone rips it out and puts that driver into the Hurd? The GPL is supposed to allow that type of thing, granting permission to use a patent for a particular project isn't really playing nice.

Re:Just Linux?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

What if Linux were to fork?

The code concerned by Nokia patents will just have to use threads instead I guess...

Kernel module?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this implemented as a kernel module? And will the kernel flunkies help me out if there is a bug in this? I mean, I don't want to become a patent pariah like I already am an nVidia pariah.

Also, is this going to require an active internet connection in order to connect to the patent database?

Plus, do I now have support for the JPEG patents in the kernel? That'd be cool.

Most interesting part to me

[Dark Paladin]

Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this means that if you are a Linux developer, use one of Nokia's patents as regards to this agreement, then turn around and try to sue LInux (or IBM, natch) for violating *your* patents, then you lose the ability to use Nokia's patents so Nokia can go after *you*.

If nothing else, it will make some companies who would sue Linux in a Rambus "We'll help develop the technology by committee then sue anybody who tries to actually use it without our permission" from (allegedly, like SCO) letting their technology be added into Linux, release a kernel, then start suing companies for violating their IP. With Nokia's clause here, they'll have to make certain that nothing of what they did includes Nokia's patents.

Phew. Interesting how complex things have to get just to cover your ass thanks to a exploitive lawsuit happy companies.

Re:Most interesting part to me

[stedo]

exploitive lawsuit happy companies

What a lot to type! Your fingers must be tired. In future, you can just use the short version of that phrase: SCO

Uh...

[Fantasy Football]

...people still use Nokia? Bummer.

Sorry but we have to reject this

[Baki]

As much good intentions Nokia may have at this time towards Linux and OSS in general, it is not acceptable to be at the mercy of such good will. Software patents need to be rejected on principle, and not be accepted because they happen to cause no damage AT THE MOMENT because of current good will.

Nokia is one of the main proponents of software patents in the European debate regarding this subject. The only answer is: we don't want your parents, we don't want any (software) patents in existance at all. Anything other would be very hypocritical.

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[Pecisk]

I wonder about it too - it is strange that such large company can't take their act together. Come on, Nokia, you DON'T gain nothing much of software patents IF you act in market in good faith.

But let's be honest here - is good to see the change in trend. World won't change in one day, and software patents are here to stay for some time. But for Europe let's hope they simply won't go in serious action. Let's do our best.

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[RealAlaskan]

Well, really, you can't reject it. It's a promise not to sue anyone for any hypothetical patent infringements which may have happened to date:

From Nokia's IP statement:

Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005.

How do you plan to reject that? Are you going to take them to court and try to force them to sue kernel developers or Linux users? Since there is no quid pro quo required, there in nothing to refuse.

As I said in another post, what we need from any company which wants to be ``Linux friendly'' is irrevokable permission to use their patents in any GPL'd software. This isn't close to that, it isn't much, and it really isn't even a good start, but it's more than they had to do, and we should thank them nicely and go back to ignoring them.

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia is one of the main proponents of software patents in the European debate regarding this subject.

Source, please? I'm not disputing your claim but I just haven't heard it before (but I have heard the contrary).

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[cortana]

Not difficult.

Nokia seems absolutely pro-swpat. Their patent department has done lots of lobbying in conferences and in the European Parliament. We encountered the head of their IP department, Tim Frain, in Bournemouth in summer 2002. Participants at the conference easily demonstrated that his arguments are economic nonsense. http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/nokia/index.en.html

Campaigners are opposed by representatives from large companies, including Nokia, which the FFII reports is engaged in energetic Pro-Patent Lobbying Efforts. Nokia argues that software patents "provide incentives to undertake research and development in Europe, and to promote licensing and technology transfer". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/13/eu_patent_ protest/

Meanwhile, lobbyists in favour of software patents are also gearing up
for the fight. FFII has obtained a copy of a round-robin letter being
circulated by Nokia's Tim Frain (Nokia/Southwood) and Dany Ducoulombier
(Nokia/Brussels) for pro-patent signatures before April 8th. The letter
calls on ministers to drop their objections, and to support a draft text
issued by the Irish Presidency on March 17th. http://lwn.net/Articles/79930/

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[Baki]

let everyone know loudly that this public relations move is not going to change our mind regarding software patents.

especially some politicians might be fooled by such moves; one of their concerns regarding software patents is the damage they might do to open source software. PR stunts like this could make them think that this is not the case. that must be avoided. it must remain clear that software patents are, in the long term, of utmost danger to OSS.

Re:Sorry but we have to reject this

[RealAlaskan]

it must remain clear that software patents are, in the long term, of utmost danger to OSS.

Absolutely! But still, there's nothing to reject; there's no offer.

We should respond with something like: ``This is a harmless, meaningless gesture from Nokia. Open source and Libre software developers still need a useful commitment on patents from them.''

Or, perhaps, if we want to sound a little nastier and more cynical: ``Since Nokia couldn't find any lawsuits they wanted to file, they've made a big noise about not filing any. They still haven't foresworn any future lawsuits, so this is meaningless.''

Natch, they're a hardware company.

[lheal]

Why wouldn't they allow their patents to be used in an OS?

They reserve the right to snatch that back, such as if the Linux kernel suddenly acquires the ability to become hardware and run itself.

Or if they ever start to "see themselves as a software company" or believe they're "really about consulting" or some other such dreck, then they'll snatch back their patents. They'd also be on the road to corporate oblivion, but that would be independent of allowing FOSS use of their patents.

Keep making the neat gizmos, Nokia.

Re:Natch, they're a hardware company.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not a "hardware company". They sell products that consist of both hardware and software. If you bought a phone and found it was just a lump of hardware you'd take it back. Their ability to restrict the use of hardware or of software features is equally useful to them in beating their competitors. They are also lobbying intensively for the introduction of software patents in Europe.

when is a kernel not a kernel?

[acidrain]

How much modification can I make to the linux kernel before it is not the linux kernel? E.g. if I made it into a user-space image manipulation program that ran under windows? Here is the crux of my concern: if you liscence something to a open source program, you have given a liscence to the whole world to use it but under ambiguous terms. The only real restriction that I can see here is that the code has to remian GPL and that you need to prove some ancestry to the kernel, which can be a total farce involving a few copy commands... Otherwise if the version with their code has to come directly from Linus then they have seriously encumbered the kernel and that fails their GPL requirement. To sum up, if you are going to open up your technology to one open source project you should really open it up to everyone. Not to slag Nokia here, what they have done is great, and to be lauded, just if you are going to bring a case of beer to the party, you shouldn't write your friends names on the box. It's not cool and people will snag a bottle if they feel like it anyhow.

Re:when is a kernel not a kernel?

[Anonymous Coward]

As quoted above, this only goes for kernel releases up to now. They can still sue over any new functionality added to the kernel. What that basically means is this rule only goes for the current combination of nokia's patents and the kernel-code. If you use the kernel to build some new completely unrelated software, they can sue you if the added code infringes their patents, not if the old kernel-code does so. At least, that's how I read it.
So other GPL projects are free to infringe on Nokia's patents as long as they do it with code from the linux kernel. :)

Nokia and Torvalds...

[fbonnet]

are both Finnish, which certainly is coincidental.

Re:Nokia and Torvalds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia and Torvalds are both Finnish

The game is finnish when Fats says it's finnish. Is it finnish, Fats?

good for the wrong reasons

[CAPSLOCK2000]

I'm afraid this statement is rather useless. Allthough the Linux kernel (the tree of Linus) is protected, derivatives are not. IMHO this means that anyone customizing the kernel (eg to run on a telephone) is not safe from them.

However, there is one very nice paragraph:

Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel.

In other words, if anyone starts threatening Linux with patents, they might find Nokia lawyers on their doorstep.

Re:good for the wrong reasons

[PixelSlut]

In other words, if anyone starts threatening Linux with patents, they might find Nokia lawyers on their doorstep.

Almost but not quite, I think. I read this as saying, "If you use Linux (or possibly something else that may contain patents of Nokia's?) and you are threatening Linux development with your own patents, we'll set the dogs on your ass to sue you over our own patents."

Is it irrevocably?

[nietsch]

yet to rtfa, but is thie just a statement or is it a irrevocable licence? It would be a very smart move of nokia to support linux at first, but revoke their licence because it makes more business sense for them to do so (nokia for some reason going bust SCO-stylee).

I have the impression that they made the mistake to let the PR droids announce this without letting technical and/or legal people have the last word.
Another thing is that they are silently pushing software patents, something that is still being debated in Europe (and it looks we might just not end up with some abomination like in the US). Without swpats, their move would have been without substance.

Re:Is it irrevocably?

[Anders]

yet to rtfa

If you did rtfa, you would see this: Nokia, therefore, issues the legally binding Patent Statement, which has been posted on its website at www.nokia.com/iprstatements.

... which, in turn, says this: Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005.

So it is irrevocable, but only covers the kernel as of today.

Re:Is it irrevocably?

[Hinhule]

Nokia probably has Software Patents in the US.

Not so much pushing for software patents. Probably just playing the game by the rules the US has.

Read the small print before hyping

[mjrauhal]

The patent license seems to be purely a PR stunt without any real substance whatsoever.

First, they don't even assert that anything is covered by their patents.

Second, they assert a right to start acting up anyway if something that is covered by their patents ends up in the kernel.

Third, even if some patented thing in Linux was covered by this license, its use is only authorized in the Linux kernel as published on kernel.org (not even vendor- or self-patched versions), which is pretty useless.

Fourth, the above condition is incompatible with GPL's clause 7. It follows that if Nokia makes a credible patent claim on something that is in the kernel, then nobody has a valid license to distribute the kernel anymore until the patent issue is sorted out in the usual manner (that is, by getting a GPL-compatible license or working around it).

To sum it up, it seems they're just trying to shine their shield after bashing in some FFII heads here in the EU.

Nokia gives patents, does linux kern team want em?

[benow]

Nokia is giving patents (and relying on patent system), but should linux kernel team accept patented stuff to begin with? I mean, it's nice and all for Nokia to share, but shouldn't they be sharing equally regardless? The patent system is notoriously slow, imprecise and contains many erroneous/broad patents. I can't help but think that relying on such a system is like willingly introducing a bottleneck. The whole pantent structure is also resting upon enforcement, and the assumption that people cannot cooperate in the first place. Both consumers and producers must realize that there is more momentum and vitality thru cooperation than thru regulated/enforced proprietarianism... I'd stay away from the patented stuff to begin with. If they are well intentioned towards openness, let them go the whole way.

The Patent Statement

[MrByte420]

Legally Binding Commitment Not to Assert Nokia Patents against the Linux Kernel

Patent Statement

Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005. The aforesaid non-assertion shall extend to any future Linux Kernel to the extent that Nokia does not declare any new functionality embodied in such Linux Kernel to be outside the scope of this Patent Statement. Nokia shall issue such declaration through its website no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the official release of such Linux Kernel.

Both of the aforesaid non-assertion commitments are subject to the condition that the party relying on any such commitment and its Affiliates do not assert any of their patents, or patents they control or have a third party assert any patent, against any Linux Kernel.

Nokia's Patent Statement is not an assurance that any of its Patents validly covers the Linux Kernel, is enforceable, or that the Linux Kernel does not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.

No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed granted or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise.

Definitions:

"Affiliate"
of a party means any legal entity greater than fifty percent (50%) of whose outstanding shares or securities representing the right to vote for the election of directors or other managing authority are, or greater than fifty percent (50%) of whose equity interest is, now or hereafter, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by that party, but only as long as such ownership or control exists.

"Nokia"
means Nokia Corporation and its Affiliates.

"Linux Kernel"
means any version of the Linux kernel which (i) is released as "stable version", (ii) is licensed under the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 for the Linux operating system" and (iii) has been published by the Kernel.org Organization, Inc on its Linux Kernel Archive website at www.kernel.org.

"Patent"
means any such claims, including without limitation, method and product claims, of any and all patents and patent applications with a priority date of 31 December 2005 or earlier, now owned or hereafter acquired by Nokia, which are infringed by any Linux Kernel that exists as of 25 May 2005 or by any functionality embodied in any future Linux Kernel to the extent that Nokia has not declared as described hereinabove such functionality to be outside the scope of this Patent Statement. For the avoidance of doubt, Patent shall not include any claims for enabling technologies that are not themselves embodied in the Linux Kernel (e.g., without limitation, hardware or semiconductor manufacturing technology as such).

Re:The Patent Statement

[MrByte420]

I'll reply to my own post :)

This seems a little confusing/concerning. I think its well intentioned but if the code is licenseed as GPL how can it be under the restrictions that these claims only apply to the kernel. Suppose I want to go use kernel code in my own open source code and this code is covered by the patent, all of the sudden the GPL code is not GPL'able.

I really don't think this has alot of legal teeth - I think its more just them saying that in spirit, they're not going to sue us. Lets not foret that companies go down the dark path

Whats to keep Nokia...

[doormat]

from turning around in 10 years and demanding back-payments on all patent encumbered features and technology in the kernel? A la Rambus.

(for those that dont know, Rambus put in a bunch of ideas into the JEDEC council for DRAM (SDRAM, DDR, etc) and some got used. They then turned around later and submarrined the DRAM industry by demanding payment on SDRAM, DDR, etc. They sued and lost I believe, but have won or settled other cases regarding anti-competitive tactics by the rest of the industry to stamp them out.)

Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I attended a lecture on innovation management by an individual responsible for it at Nokia and he said that their view is pretty much that "we're in the business of innovation - not lawsuits" and said that their policy is to never take legal action against someone infringing their patents (i.e. the instructions to their lawyers is: If you start a patent lawsuit you're fired even if you're right). The reason why they use patents is only to protect themselves from lawsuits by others. And he had a quite good piece of advice for anyone considering patenting something: It's not worth it since by the time you've got twelve idiots deciding your fate you've got nothing left to win.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the classic defensive patent argument, I used to think it was a lie but now I think people who espouse this crud are simply in denial. Besides which, who's to say Nokia's patent policy wont change in 2 years?

My advice to you is never to get a tattoo reading "sucker" on your forehead. People can obviously see you comming from miles away already.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[iabervon]

The FSF currently advises free software developers to get defensive software patents (Eben Moglen mentioned this during linux.conf.au, as reported partway through the article about his talk on this page). Of course, there's a difference between simply not asserting patents and licensing them under appropriate terms. It would be nice if the FSF were to propose a license for making patents available to GPL code, so that we get actual standardized licenses instead of vague statements.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why they use patents is only to protect themselves from lawsuits by others. And he had a quite good piece of advice for anyone considering patenting something: It's not worth it since by the time you've got twelve idiots deciding your fate you've got nothing left to win.

So THEY need software patents to protect themselves from lawsuits, but they say that it isn't worth it for anyone else?

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF lobby against software patents, Nokia are supporting software patents and using the "defensive patent" argument to justify it. One organization has a consistant and logical position, the other does not.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I should've elaborated. That was meant as advice for Joe Inventor, not corporations - he said that because getting a patent is expensive (for a private person) that's his advice to people he knows that have asked him for advice what to do with their potentially great inventions.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[cortana]

I also think there's a big difference between a patent owned by Linyos Torovoltos, who may have principles that prevent him from using the patent offensively, and a patent owned by the completley amoral Megacorp, Inc., a machination driven purely by the greed of its shareholders.

Megacorp, Inc. may say that it will only use its patents defensively, and maybe it will--today. But maybe tomorrow its stock is owned by a different set of shareholders; perhaps they aren't quite as secure with Megacorp's market position as the previous set were, and decide to start using the patent to make money.

Bottom line is, you can trust some people--you can not trust a corporation.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Anonymous Coward]

What's his advice to people who develop software themselves and are then faced with the possibility of litigation because a MINORITY of wealthy companies have been mislead by their patent departments to lobby for patents on mental steps?

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[iabervon]

Which do you think has the logical position? The FSF says that software patents are bad, but people have to play the system as it stands, and the best defense for Free Software against companies with software patents is to have software patents as well. Nokia supports software patents as defensive patents, but they're primarily a software-on-dedicated-hardware company worried about hardware companies with patents. The only instance I know of Nokia enfocing their patents is over GSM and GPRS, which is fundamentally a hardware thing (at least, nobody's built a purely software system that does RF fast enough to be in that band). Remember that the company that had the LZW patent (which applied to GIF) was fundamentally a hardware company, and mostly licensed it to companies producing communications devices using compression. It seems reasonable for Nokia to want something in their field to cross-license with companies that do some software and primarily research hardware.

Now, if there were a substantial lobby against having patents of any sort, and Nokia didn't join it, their defensive patent argument would be inconsistent.

(My personal position is that software should be exempt from the possibility of infringing patents; software patents should be allowed, but they would only be meaningful if the techniques were implemented as hardware, and patented hardware techniques implemented as software would by safe. Patents fundamentally apply to techniques, and a given technique could be used in either software or hardware. The right defense for sfotware is, therefore, an exemption for software implementations, rather than an attempt to prohibit patents which specify software).

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[iabervon]

You can't really trust a person, either; the patents might be inherited by someone less moral, or they might be seized in payment for debts, or something. You can't really trust a patent holder; you can only really trust a license. The Nokia press release doesn't really count, but it's hard to blame them: there isn't a OSS-industry-standard patent license like the GPL is for copyright that we can request that they license their patents under.

Re:Nokia has an interesting view on patents

[Halo1]

Yeah, they say that all the time. And when you then go to work for them based on that misinformation, you figure out the truth pretty quickly.

My guess

[gr8_phk]

Excuse the self reply. My guess is that it's because they are using Linux in a product. They probably don't want people to interpret their distribution of code implementing their patents under GPL as giving permission to use those patents for other GPLed projects. IANAL, but I suspect there would be at least some merit to such an argument (for other use). By explicitly granting permission to use the patents just for the versions of Linux they want to use, it makes their intent regarding the patents clear.

These aren't the patent rights you're looking for. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:My guess

[Lifewish]

If they're the ones producing and distributing the code, the GPL's "no extra restrictions" clause may well come into play. Hope the GPL3 clarifies this stuff a bit.

Re:My guess

[zarr]

the GPL's "no extra restrictions" clause may well come into play.

GPL, section 6: "... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ...".

To me that sounds like, if I got a copy of linux from nokia, then nokia has no business what so ever telling me what I can or cannot do with that code, as long as I'm abiding by the terms of the GPL. By distributing the code under the gpl, they did give me the right to use, modify and redistribute it didn't they?

Re:My guess

[orderb13]

Yep. If they release anything that contains GPL works AND their patents then their patents are now under the GPL, which means usable by ANY other GPL product. Man I hope they screw up and actually do that.

Cynical

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty cynical from Nokia - we allow you to use code that you wrote and invented
(although only for Linux kernel that we use for free in our own products).

You showed us your Greatness, thank you very much, merciful Nokia !
You saved us from the evil of your patents !

There's one condition..

[leathered]

As soon as the sound system initialises it has to play that irritating Nokia theme tune.

Nokia and GSreamer == Patent issues ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent issues with GStreamer ? How does it affect GNOME development and GStreamer ?

A major endorsement for the GNOME platform came today as Nokia announced their Nokia 770 Internet tablet device. This very cool device is linux based and used technologies such as GTK+, GStreamer, gnome-vfs, gconf and dbus. There is a developers page, maemo.org which have information on how you can write your own applications for the device. Be sure to check out the screenshots page.

People who want to know more about this device is recommended to come to GUADEC in Stuttgart starting this Saturday, where Nokia will do a presentation. The development of this device was done in cooperation with Fluendo, OpenedHand and Imendio.

No.

[Chyeld]

Hi! I'm Suckia! Nokia's compeditor!

Nokia won't let us use their super-duper patent that revolutionizes the industry, so we plan on creating a dummy FOSS project which just does enough to allow us to use their patent as a FOSS project but we plan on doing everything else as a closed source project!

*nelson*HA HA!*/nelson*

"Framework of certainty"

[apathyonline]

Nokia said that open source needed a framework of certainty. I'd have to agree with this... If everyone was uncertain about the future of opensource with regard to patents, people may shy away from it. This has not deterred open source software's growth, but it is an area of concern. With Nokia allowing oss developers to all their patents freely, one piece of the framework is set, which is great news!

Can OpenSolaris also use these patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be an interesting war. Looks like it'll be

IBM+Nokia+???+Linux

vs

Sun+MSFT+Solaris

in the ultimate patent showdown.

Re:Can OpenSolaris also use these patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Sun + Solaris redundant?

Re:Can OpenSolaris also use these patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Sun + Solaris redundant?

No, it's IBM + European = redundant.

I waive all my patents claims against Linux too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I don't have any.

OT: Correct your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Jon Stewart.

This seems odd? Possibly due to IBM patents?

[linuxtelephony]

I read the article and came away thinking I trust Nokia even less now. The news *seems* good on the surface, but several key sentences gave me pause.

For instance, it seems very clearly to me that Nokia is saying that the Linux kernel is currently violating one or more of their patents. I did not search deeper, but I, for one, would like to know what patents they claim are being infringed?

Sure, it seems nice of them to say it is OK to use those items, but something about this smells fishy. I think I'll wait for the other shoe to drop.

Another though occurred to me. Has anyone done an analysis to see if any of the 500 IBM patents are used in the kernel? Could this be in response to that usage (if it exists)? I mean, if they are going to rely on Linux (see the new 770 web tablet), and they think they found patent infringement, then they would be precluded from going after it, because to do so would rescind IBM's permission for Nokia to use IBM's patent(s) that may be in Linux as well. This could just be PR spin to try and make Nokia smell better.

Like I said, I'll wait for the other shoe(s) to drop. I think there is more to this story, and before I am willing to pat Nokia on the back, I want more details.

Re:Capchas are BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you have to type things like "fvwgkmd" to post anonymously! The horror, the horror!

Deceivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia is one of the leading active proponents of software patents in Europe. Don't trust these poisonous snakes.

I suggest that the OSS community tells them where to stick their patents.

In fact, it would be best if companies like Nokia were barred from using Linux or any OSS software by a clause in the GPL. Let them write their own software.

I'm happy to say that today I bought a Samsung phone, and the Nokia is going in the rubbish bin where it belongs, after I have smashed it with a hammer.

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new Finnish overlords!

They have already granted us this and more.

[MartinG]

By distributing linux with their new devices they are implicitly granting all recipients of these devices a license to patented code (if any) that may exist in linux under the terms of the GPL. This is because they have to distribute under the terms of the GPL or not distribute at all and the GPL makes it clear that no additional restrictions can be added (such as "we may revoke patent licenses at a later date" or "this is only for linux, not for other programs")

So because it is under the terms of the GPL, we are allowed to use patented code from linux (if any) in any other GPL programs. If they say we can not they are breaking the terms of the GPL and must stop distributing linux.

Of course it may be that they have no patents on any code in linux. In that case they can say what they want about how they can be used.

Also, if they do have patents on code in linux and they still impose their terms on it, as well as not being allowed to distribute it themselves they would be able to use their patents to prevent others distributing it unless they removed the patented code.

Software patents suck.

IANAL.

Patent support... finally

[elgatozorbas]

insmod patent.o

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia's prior lobbying in Europe makes this PR stunt offensive. People need to understand why they are making this promise.

List of Nokia Patents

[cpeterso]

So where are the patents? The closet approximiation of Nokia's patents is this list of 900+ patents: Nokia Software Patents at the European Patent Office (EPO). Most are related to mobile data syncing, but a few might be applicable to Linux, such as "ep1432207: Adaptive delayed ACK switching for TCP applications."

Re:List of Nokia Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Go here http://ep.espacenet.com/ and click "quick search" enter "Nokia" in the search box then spend the rest of your life going through the 35747 hits.

When you're blind

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be a problem, ass.

Nokia gaming FLOSS developers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia is one of the major companies (if not THE company) lobbying for software patents (sorry, "Computer Implemented Inventions") in Europe. Taking into account that they reserve the right to enforce some patents in the future, I simply believe it is a major PR stunt. Don't get me wrong, I'd really wish this was a legitimate pro-FLOSS movement.

Not the point

[A nonymous Coward]

The point is that the kernel is governed by the GPL. The GPL forbids further restrictions. The kernel can't add code which must stay in the kernel; if it is in the kernel, it is GPL'd; if it is GPL'd, it can be redistributed and modified.

This Nokia announcement is worthless from a practical code point of view. It may be good marketing PR, but it will add no code to the kernel.

This is just a PR stunt!

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

The EU parlament are going to vote for software patents next week - so this is just a PR stunt to get the parlament members to think that Linux is safe and thus approve software patents in EU!

Re:This is just a PR stunt!

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU parlament are going to vote for software patents next week

I hope they're going to vote AGAINST software patents next week, but fear you could be right.

Re:This is just a PR stunt!

[plj]

Indeed. Nokia is one of the largest, if not the largest, among pro-SWPAT lobbiers in the Union, so this is absolutely no reason to praise them. And the waxwork cabinet of Finnish PM Vanhanen unfortunately voted in Council of Ministers just like Ollila told him to.

Re:This is just a PR stunt!

[miomao]

You are right. I hope MEPs are not so stupid to fall in this trap.

Kind of

[Morosoph]

Any code written specifically by Nokia for the Linux Kernel needs to be unencumbered for the sake of those producing derived works, but the GPL does not restrict outsiders from random acts of (partial) generousity. It does mean that if you take code from the kernel for another purpose, you may find yourself outside the scope of Nokia's licence.

This is a step in the right direction, but the real goal is the elimination of software patents. The European parliament is likely to vote for this, but national governments are likely to ignore this to varying degrees.

An appropriate parliamentary vote is likely to make it easier for the next generation of politicians to reverse some of the modern propertarian extremism, but for the present generation, ever-stronger property rights are "common sense", regardless of economic analyses that say the converse.

Re:Kind of

[Anonymous Coward]

An appropriate parliamentary vote is likely to make it easier for the next generation of politicians to reverse some of the modern propertarian extremism, but for the present generation, ever-stronger property rights are "common sense", regardless of economic analyses that say the converse

You refer to the possible acceptance of sw-patents as ever-stronger property rights? I'm referred as anarcho-capitalist, rather coinfident of what is property, I'd say. And an idea is not property, if you go on public with it. Nor is the lyrics of your song, if you sing your song in public so that somebody who didn't sign one's name your license, was able to hear it "legally"(= had the land owner's permit to be there).

You still could make bugs with your music, by selling lyrics to somebody else or having concerts. Or there would be new types of medicines available as the insurance companies would been allied to develope those to get the health insurance costs low.

This can't be the whole truth

[jeti]

If the above claim was true, Nokia would gain nothing by the patent system. They'd just be sinking money so they can't be attacked.

Why then is Nokia agressively lobbying for software patents in Europe?

doesn't worry me

[cahiha]

A binding, blanket statement that they will not enforce their patents against arbitrary new functionality in future Linux kernel releases could invite abuse: companies could try to circumvent arbitrary Nokia patents by simply putting implementations into the Linux kernel, even if the patent has nothing to do with kernel functionality.

Software patents are an unfortunate fact of life right now. Nokia has done pretty much the best one can under the circumstances. I think one should applaud them for that.

Re:doesn't worry me

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt that a non-functional kernel add-on would ever be accepted into Linux. It simply won't pass the cut.

Re:doesn't worry me

[Anonymous Coward]

But Linux is open source. Company X can fork it, add its module, and say that exempts them from patent claims, if Nokia made such a blanket commitment. In fact, Company X might fork Linux, delete 99.99% of the code, move it all into user space, then add the patented invention, and say that the result is still a "Linux kernel" because it still contains some Linux kernel code and still falls under the Linux kernel's license.

Re:doesn't worry me

[DrSkwid]

why would kernel.org host such a kernel ?

"Linux Kernel" [nokia.com] means any version of the Linux kernel which (i) is released as "stable version", (ii) is licensed under the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 for the Linux operating system" and (iii) has been published by the Kernel.org Organization, Inc on its Linux Kernel Archive website at www.kernel.org.

> Software patents are an unfortunate fact of life right now. Nokia has done pretty much the best one can under the circumstances. I think one should applaud them for that.

So unfortunate that Nokia is a big pro patent mover in Europe. Keep your hands where they are, no applauding required.

Patent Nuclear War (or Nookular War)

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this means....

I respectfully believe you are wrong.

Nokia wrote...

Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel.

Here is what I think it means.

Let's suppose there is some third party. Let's call this hypothetical party "Mega Monopol-O-Soft", or just MS for short.

Suppose MS sues Xyzzy because (1) Xyzzy uses Linux, and (2) Linux infringes on an MS patent. Therefore, Xyzzy is infringing an MS patent by Xyzzy's use of Linux.

"....Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party (i.e. MS in this hypothetical) asserting its patents (meaning MS patents) against any Linux Kernel." This means that MS shall not enjoy the use of Nokia's patents. If MS infringes a Nokia patent, Nokia is reserving the right to sue MS for infringement of the Nokia patent. It would not matter if MS is using Linux or not. Even if MS's infringement of Nokia's patent were as a direct result of MS using Linux, Nokia is reserving the right to sue over patent infringement.

I read this similar to Novel's promise to use their patent arsenel against anyone who asserts patents against open source.

I suspect IBM would sue someone over infringement of IBM patents (patents unrelated to Linux) if that someone asserted patents against Linux users, thus affecting the Linux kernel, and IBM's huge investment in Linux.

All it would take for us to see such a nuclear war would be for some hypothetical party (the hypothetical "MS" I used for example) to start the patent nuclear war against Linux.

Re:Patent Nuclear War (or Nookular War)

[Dark Paladin]

You're probably more correct than I am - I decided to take the more conservative belief "just in case" Nokia didn't mean for their agreement to extend that far.

Re:Patent Nuclear War (or Nookular War)

[DF5JT]

Please mod this up.

Nokia is indeed up to something else...

[Alan Cox]

Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do.

Nor alas is this just PR spin to make them look good. Nokia is lobbying hard to get almost unlimited software patenting allowed in Europe. This press release is part of a game to fool the parliament into believing that open source is not threatened by patents and to make them feel more comfortable. Right now the Finnish MEP's in particular face difficult choices - Nokia is almost "Finland the company" and Linus is "Finland the rockstar" , and they say exactly the reverse about patents.

Re:Nokia is indeed up to something else...

[Max Romantschuk]

Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do.

Patents and copyright are different beasts. You can write a piece of code which violates someone else's patent regardless of the copyright and license involved.

Re:Nokia is indeed up to something else...

[albalbo]

I suspect Alan is fairly au fait with the GPL - you're missing his point.

The GPL says: "[..] if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies [..] through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

Nokia has to licence its patents, or people who receive the software through it are unable to redistribute that software. That would not satisfy the GPL, hence, they would not be able to distribute the software.

Re:Nokia is indeed up to something else...

[rhincewind]

It may have something to do with this webpad (hmm, funny. It's posted on MSnbc...)

yes, but who cares?

[cahiha]

Of course, they are doing this for business reasons and to hurt Microsoft. But that doesn't diminish the value of their actions: they are still helping an open source platform used by many people, including their own competitors. That is the spirit of open source.

Contrast that with Sun's recent patent grant. Sun is shipping both Solaris and Linux systems, but they grant their patents only for Solaris, not Linux. That's presumably because they are the primary user of Solaris, but their competitors would benefit from anything they do to make Linux more attractive.

Is it a concidence that........

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a concidence that Nokia finally saw the light and figured it could actually make money off of linux?

Re:So pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need to mod parent down. The first infringement lawsuits against BSD are due as soon as software patents become enforcable in Europe. BSD is dying.

The new Nokia Linux marriage...

[Hymer]

...hopefully will result in some drivers and/or software for all those Nokia products with only Windows support...

The D211 and Card Phone 2.0 are two examples...

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia are helping nobody, this is a PR stunt to fool the EU parliament.

Re:WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Is their Linux-based product a PR stunt too?

I don't know what to make of Nokia's overall stance on patents; it's worth debating. But if this is a binding commitment on their part, then it is a reasonable and positive contribution from them.

they are a big backer of software patents

[imr]

This is their good cop move, behind the scene they threaten every political person they can that they are are going to suppress jobs in europe if patents dont become legal.
At least they have a good cop move, unlike microsoft.

Re:they are a big backer of software patents

[WillAffleckUW]

This is their good cop move, behind the scene they threaten every political person they can that they are are going to suppress jobs in europe if patents dont become legal.
At least they have a good cop move, unlike microsoft.

This assumes that software patents will even survive this decade. Based on rulings in a number of nations, it's highly likely that the EU won't listen to idiotic claims like this.

Information just wants to be free.

Re:So pathetic

[kernelpanicked]

That's a pretty lame statement considering all my boxen run OpenBSD. No binary drivers + no non-free software = no way in hell its getting sued.

In case you jarheads haven't gotten it yet BSD cannot die. The code is mine, given to me just like it was given to everyone else, with no restrictions. If I have to be the last hacker on Earth coding for BSD then so be it, but I doubt I'm alone.

Good troll attempt though.

MOD PARENT UP!

[dabadab]

The parent post points out the hypocrisy in this statement: if all that Nokia wants is to be safe from patent lawsuits then it would be quite counterproductive to push for software patents in the EU - which is exactly what they are doing.
So, I do not really believe that they do not plan to use SW patents offensively.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[nkv]

So, I do not really believe that they do not plan to use SW patents offensively.

Too many negatives. ;)

Erwin announces patent support to the Linux kernel

[EJB]

I hereby announce that I shall not assert any of the patents that I own against the Linux kernel! Hurray!!
Now if everybody does the same, we surely have contributed more to Linux than Nokia, right?

I think this is all FUD; if Nokia has patent claims against the Linux kernel, they should say so, otherwise they should shut up.

- Erwin

Re:So pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

The code is mine, given to me just like it was given to everyone else, with no restrictions

So you think that the Linux users should thank Nokia for their patent grant but at the same time BSD users aren't restricted by those patents even though Nokia haven't offered them anything? How does that work?

Software patents

[rimberg]

Nokia seems absolutely pro-swpat in europe. Their patent department has done lots of lobbying in conferences and in the European Parliament. We encountered the head of their IP department, Tim Frain, in Bournemouth in summer 2002. Participants at the conference easily demonstrated that his arguments are economic nonsense.

The internet software for the Nokia phones is developped by Opera and not Nokia itself. Opera is supporting our directive counter proposal.

We have seen Tim Frain at the 7th november and 26th november hearings in Brussels, he seems to be a European Parliament "resident".

FFii nokia info

Betting Exchange

Re:So pathetic

[kernelpanicked]

I absolutely did not say that. Of course you son't see BSD attempting to push its way onto every gizmo and gadget on the planet. What part of no proprietary code did you not understand?

Software patents are unAmerican

[Jonti]

Well, John Locke wouldn't have liked them, I'm so sure of that, I think I can imagine what he'd have said.

Patents are to control the duplication, the manufacture, of physical machines of one sort or another. Copyright is to control the duplication, the copying, of expressions of one form or another.

Computer software is an effective expression for controlling the workings of a determinate engine. As expressions, programs are adequately protected by copyright.

One source of confusion is that special purpose circuitry can be patented. A circuit is a lump of matter, a body, a physical machine. It's not like most machines tho, as its design can also be realised in software, using a general purpose computer. But that's just the way it is with electronics. Some machines can be patented, but when those same machines are realised in software, the work needs to be protected by copyright instead.

It's the embodiment of an idea that can be patented, not the expression of an idea. Allowing that the expression of an idea may be patented, makes it possible to be sued for writing math or program code, or even thinking about it.

And that is a profound violation of the right to freedoms of thought and expression.

Re:Software patents are unAmerican

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, John Locke wouldn't have liked them

John Locke wasn't American, Bill Gates is. If software patents have a nationality then they are American.

Re:Software patents are unAmerican

[Jonti]

I'll let a USAian explain the importance of Locke to Americanism. Anyone for Jefferson?

Re:So pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

It is you who are the troll. I run OpenBSD, it's no more or less vulnerable to a patent infringement lawsuit than linux.

Re:So pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty lame statement considering all my boxen run OpenBSD. No binary drivers + no non-free software = no way in hell its getting sued.
-----

Unless it infringes a software patent the developers didn't know about (lest they get hit with triple damages for infringing upon it even though they knew). But you're right, one doesn't sue OpenBSD, they sue either the developers, distributors or the users, not the software itself.

-----
In case you jarheads haven't gotten it yet BSD cannot die. The code is mine, given to me just like it was given to everyone else, with no restrictions. If I have to be the last hacker on Earth coding for BSD then so be it, but I doubt I'm alone.
-----

It dies if it no longer becomes redistributable. In theory, they could have to code around patents they hit (just like any other software maker). In practice, however, this does not seem very likely unless we have another litigant as irrational as SCO (which is entirely possible--Darl once proclaimed something about how SCO might go after *BSD, but then again, he says a lot of things).

I wouldn't say, however, that it *cannot* die. Maybe it'll last until the heat death of the universe, but even that long is not quite forever (though it may be considered as such for all practical purposes).

Re:I waive all my patents claims against Linux too

[Anonymous Coward]

Empty set is included in any set :-)

Crappy developer tools

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, to me it makes NO SENSE to push millions upon millions into product development and then screw your developers with the crappy developer tools Nokia has been putting out for years. How difficult is it to create some non-crappy cross-platform tools and document them just a little bit?

Nokia vs SCO

[Doc Ruby]

This move is a direct response to the SCO challenge to IBM's Linux (and therefore the subsequent Linux codebase as a whole). SCO has failed in its specific legal claims (so far, and perhaps inevitably). But it has succeeded in introducing uncertainty (akin to the GIF patent uncertainty, inaccurately called submarine patents) to the Linux FUDsphere. Nokia has, with this action, made a legal committment to letting Linux "off the hook" for any possible infringement to date. And with current kernel development so much more auditable than the original, with individual code heritage clearly delineated in open records, Linux itself is largely protected from such claims.

Re:Nokia vs SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

And with current kernel development so much more auditable than the original, with individual code heritage clearly delineated in open records, Linux itself is largely protected from such claims.

Sorry, you have said "patent" when you meant "copyright". The current highly auditable kernel development process makes the copyright clear. It is no help at all in ensuring that your own fresh ideas don't infringe someone else's existing patent.

There's no escape from the need to search (e.g. www.uspto.gov), if you're going to try to be safe from patents. Which is why software patents slow down innovation and development so much.

Remember that most pro-patent people will usually claim that patents are there to stimulate and encourage innovation, and only when that is exposed as a falsehood do they retreat to the real truth of patents: they are a system for ensuring that important inventions are not lost to humanity. (For the cost of teaching others your technique, you are granted a monopoly on that invention for a couple of decades.)

Sadly, for software at least, an infinitely superior system is to invent something and then disclose the source code.

Re:Nokia vs SCO

[Doc Ruby]

No, I meant "patent". If someone contributes code that violates a patent, representing it as their original work, the contributor is liable, and kernel maintainers must only remove it if they decide a notice from the patent holder is credible. That's why the audit trail is so important, and where SCO attacked IBM, with even their false claims.

Re:Nokia vs SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

the contributor is liable, and kernel maintainers must only remove it if they decide a notice from the patent holder is credible

Err no, with patents YOU would be just as liable for running the code as the person who contributed it. This discussion has not benefitted from your fiction, don't pretend to speak authoritively on a subject you know little about.

Re:Nokia vs SCO

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous Coward, it is possible that I am wrong. How about a citation showing that you are right, so we can actually learn something if you are? Instead of just obnoxious anonymous pontificating.

Thanks for nothing...

[Wolfbone]

I don't know about anyone else but I certainly don't feel like thanking Nokia - anymore than I'd feel like thanking a gang of thieves for not smearing shit on the walls and smashing the stuff they didn't want when they emptied my house. Have you seen the 'great inventions' in 'mobile phone technology' this bunch of clowns claims ownership to? Perhaps they'd like to make another statement, informing the Mozilla project that it's okay for them to continue using the 'invention' Nokia has stolen from them:

http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1253500

Nokia is playing games with the EU Parliament, they are among the worst of those pushing for unlimited patent scope. They see the patent system as an instrument to exclude or control competition and they see patents primarily as sources of revenue - not as a means to promote innovation. If you don't believe me, just ask Ilkka Rahnasto.

Re:Thanks for nothing...

[rdenisc]

I don't know for other patents. But this very one has been withdrawn according to given URL...

Re:Thanks for nothing...

[Wolfbone]

So it has - thanks.

business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Let Linux use your software patents with undefined conditions
2. Wait until your patented technologies become heavily integrated parts of the Linux kernel
3. Suddenly refuse further use of your patents
4. PROFIT ???

Good for all

[Tharald]

The important thing here is not what Nokia says about their patents. The big issue is what they say about open source software. We dont want their patents. We want no patents on software, period.

(the arguments against sw patents are pretty obvious, I'm sure most people know about them - software is pure mathematics and language, and it should be obvious why we do not want to have patents on language or math).

Nokia say that open source software fosters innovation and progress, and these are important factors in whether open source should be blocked by patent laws. The fact that they acknowledges this is good, because a big corporation say there are good things that come from open source. This is important ammunition in the fight against software patents.

not true

[Anonymous Coward]

According to sco et. al. defence you dont have to
inspect every line of the code to trust it.

Basicly what you are saying is that dont use linux or any other gpl:ed code if you are not willing to spend tens of millions of euros (==millons of dollars)
to inspect the code.

Why do you say linux is that untrustworthy?

Re:not true

[MartinG]

That's not what I am saying. You don't have to inspect the code, you just have to be ready to stop distributing it if it comes to your attantion that there is parented code included. (or ready to free the patents if they are yours)

IANAL.

Re:So pathetic

[linuxhansl]

That's *exactly* the problem with software patents. It does not matter whether you wrote the code locked up in a room, and use no binary drivers, etc.
If you happened use a patented algorithm you *are* liable. Period. And that's why the whole system is flawed.

< 1% of Linux

[darkonc]

So the Linux kernel is .. what? 20Meg? and Knoppix (a relatively limited linux release) is about 2GB uncompressed. In other words, Nokia is 'protecting' about 1% of Linux.

Not quite to be sneezed at, but it's still far from blanket protection (more like a brazillian bikini).

Mod parent up

[leonbrooks]

+1, Damn Straight

And in a big way. If Nokia can trust their IP to the GPL, why can't J Random PHB?

I have seen what they call free

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a $130 Nokia mobile phone.

On their web site they offer a free download of software for my PC which interacts with my phone.

To use this software, I have to buy a $100 USB cable. Just how free is that software?

Fuck SW patents

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont care what Nokia is up to, i dont care if it is theoretically for the benefit of Linux users.

the problem itself is SW patents, they should not exist.

as soon as we play into the sw patent protection game we will lose to those who control patent release. read those with money!

oh yeah, fuck m$ while im at it

http://www.maemo.org/nokia/contributions.html

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Nokia already contributes to open source projects: http://www.maemo.org/nokia/contributions.html .

Yes, Yes !!!

[psergiu]

Hourah !
Finaly there is hope that a DKU-5 USB cable driver will be made for other OS-es.

Nokia is doing more than the GPL requires:

[XNormal]

Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do.
The GPL does not require anyone to use his patents to fight someone *else* who is asserting his patents against the code:

"Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel."

They're giving a clear message here: "if you threaten the linux kernel, you may have to deal with us".

Re:Nokia is doing more than the GPL requires:

[rdean400]

They're giving a clear message here: "if you threaten the linux kernel, you may have to deal with us".

Yes, but unless their pledge is extended to all GPL'd software, it's useless. The GPL doesn't allow a work to be subject to a patent encumberance such that someone seeking to create a derivative work would have to ask Nokia (or other patent holders) for permission to release it.

Uhmm, Nokia policy, we have seen it before.

[S3D]

Now Nokia trying to recrut open source/ hobby developers to it's case for Linux tablet. That is very similar to what it done with Symbian OS before. Nokia promoted it with Free SDK's and open API. recruting small and hobby developers. However, as Symbian OS secured it's domination in the smartphone market, each year Symbian/Nokia started taking omething away. First came Symbian Signed for signing application. First it was promised that there will be free Symbian Signed option for non-commertial/educational applications, but we have never seen it. Next - expensive Nokia Premium service. And now Version 9 of Simbian OS, which close big purt of API (including input API) for non-licensed developers. Nokia can do the same with Linux - just add it's proprietary user interface on top of the OS and leave it closed. Not at once of case, only after it's tablet take foothold on the market. Or may be I just paranoid.

linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like such a shame that a company like nokia associates itself with linux. I'm sure that not all investors will like to hear that.

Surely a more logical chose would have been to go with one of the embedded windows operating systems.

Re:So pathetic

[kernelpanicked]

This wasn't even about OpenBSD, it just ran off that direction because the Linux zealots had no argument against what I said to begin with. I find it quite disgusting that Nokia offered a small solid to the Linux community but instead of just taking that and moving on they decide to trash Nokia all day and immediately start coming up with ways to tie up Nokia's code with the GPL for their own use. If you're going to call me a troll, at least have the balls to log in and do it, AC.

I'm buying Nokia

[Graabein]

My next cell phone, like the one I use now, will be a Nokia.

When they support me/us, I support them.

Re:Good game Nokia -- and this is not the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if the IPR statement is not the strongest you might expect. What they did was -announced a prodct that is based on Linux, GNOME, GStreamer, .... so really an open source product -launched the maemo.org and submitted quite a bit of code to open source -they have really contributed to the development of gstreamer and other components -as we know, they fund Mozilla/Minimo and other stuff -and they made the ipr statemet ==> not bad!

Property . . .

[Morosoph]

is not so simple. See my journal.

In short, property is a positive right: reinforced exclusivity. I agree that Anarcho-Capitalists tend to lean upon natural law, but natural law doesn't tell you what one is, but rather (should it be a valid mode of analysis), what it should be. Ronald Coase wrote about this; brief analysis: property exists where the investment gains outweigh the costs of exclusivity (the thing in question cannot be readily put to its best use).

I have to say that hidden within your response is the attitude that I'm talking about (although you're not as extreme as those that I seek to criticise): if you can force a route via which contracts have to be signed, that does not mean that the contracts should be enforceable. Consider EULAs and reverse-engineering.

Frequently, EULAs will prevent people from being able to provide competition, especially if (say) every school provides use of standard tools, where the user has to agree to the EULA to learn to use the tools. They do this while learning to program. Luckily, we're in a position now where there are other routes, but bear with me: if this is the only route, then the only route by which competition can arise is through illegality. Someone provides rudimentary tools and circulates them via "pirate networks". Only once someone's development is exclusively using such tools can a legal alternative arise. Depending upon the sate of property law, learning on such illegally-derived tools might itself be illegal, of course, so it might take three 'generations' to escape the yoke.

Even if it 'only' takes two generations, the EULA has not delivered a good investment:exclusivity_cost ratio. The ratio might even be negative: facing no competition, little new investment is made into the product.

There are plenty of other examples (the most obvious one is 'voluntary' slavery), but signing contracts is not a good sole criterion.