Slashdot Mirror
CA Releases Patents to OSS
simonfairfax writes "ComputerWorld reports that Computer Associates International has released 14 patents to the opensource community, following IBM's lead. From the article: 'CA said it is joining IBM in encouraging other companies to create an industrywide "patent commons" in which patents are pledged royalty-free to further innovation in areas of broad interest to developers and users of IT.'"
That's nice and all, but is there actually any legal assurance that they won't change their mind and sue a developer for patent infringement at a later day? The cynic in me thinks it'd be a great way to get free labor -- promise a royalty free license to a patent and then wait for someone to write some useful code. When it's released, sue them and offer to settle if the developer turns all the code over to your company. It'd probably cost a lot less than actually hiring someone to do something useful with the patent.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I only sort of mildly disliked them before. But that was before I found out that part of my FOSS project was based on something, hazard pointers, that has a patent application in on it. You go and improve somebody else's idea and then you can't even use it. Sucks.
This seems a pretty strange list to me: someone knows why they have chosen those 14 patents? They have a specific application/library in mind?
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
It would be very cool to see another clause saying that organization wishing to take advantage of this patent protection must also license all of their software patents under the same (or compatible) terms.
Rather than taking RMS's short-sighted "no patents at all" approach, the GPL could use patent protection the same way it uses copyright protection to incentivise developers to open-source their software (and patents).
Such an apporach would give open-source software a huge advantage over its proprietary counterpart: not ony would OSS developers get access to a vast selection of source code, but they would have royalty-free access to use certain techniques that would otherwise not be allowed. This could have a very strong viral effect beyond the power that the GPL currently wields.
If RMS could have fought against copyright protection, he would have--after all, "information wants to be free," right? Lacking that option, he used his own copyright protection to force others to willingly give up their own. Software patents are a reality. Rather than fight impotently against the ideal, we ought to harness that protection to further the open-source cause. The earlier it takes hold, the more powerful the move will become.
I rather like the idea of the FSF patenting its more clever ideas to prevent them from being used by closed-source developers. Right now OSS makes it easier to develop open source, the effect would be better if they also made it harder to survive developing closed source software.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
the quote at the bottomb of the /. page:
Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?
Seems relevant.
There are two entirely different questions:
a) normative: do we need a patent system for sw
b) positive: do we have to get patents under a patent system which allows them
Answers
a) no. Get organised.
b) yes
If you want to fight software patents get organised. FFII did a wonderful job in Europe.
They also have an US list with only few subscribers yet. Please get subscribed. My experience is that it is all about critical mass.
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl
Note: there are patent reform bill discussions in Congress but no one from FFII is involved yet. It is important and we need to get more US supporters to export the EU success.