Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
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.
Infuriate left and right
If they believe in open source so much shouldn't that be *any* open source project as opposed to just the linux kernel?
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?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
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.
So, that means today we like Nokia, right?
At least, until we find out that it's all a bunch of marketing doublespeak.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
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...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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...
R.Mo
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.
You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
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.
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?
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
So, now Linux will have all the gaming power of the N-Gage?
Where can I get an ISO, I'm switching now.
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
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.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
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.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
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.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
are both Finnish, which certainly is coincidental.
However, there is one very nice paragraph:
In other words, if anyone starts threatening Linux with patents, they might find Nokia lawyers on their doorstep.
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.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
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 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.
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).
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
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:
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.
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.
See what I've been reading.
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.)
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
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.
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.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
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.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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.
Infuriate left and right
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!
Just saying it like it are.
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?
I respectfully believe you are wrong.
Nokia wrote...
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.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
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.
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.
Real life is overrated.
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS