Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Patent Pledge "Worse Than Useless"
munchola writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has declared that Microsoft's patent pledge to open source developers is 'worse than useless'. SFLC chief technology officer, Bradley Kuhn, has written to FOSS developers warning them that 'developers are no safer from Microsoft patents now than they were before'. According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute. You cannot pass the rights to your downstream recipients, even to the maintainers of larger projects on which your contribution is built.'"
Did you expected a different result?
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I doubt anyone here is actually surprised by this. Since when has Microsoft ever done anything truly for the good of OSS?
Because we all know how Microsoft treats those it writes contracts with... I seriously have to wonder why Novel thought that was a good idea. Are they so lacking in cash that they felt it was worth dealing with Bill G.?
duh. in fact, double duh. because if microsoft can make money by making up patents for things everyone uses and sneaking it by our USPO, they will.
http://edu-nix.org/shanecoyle/?p=8 / www.boycottnovell.com
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
Now, people who keep tagging every article "itsatrap" This would be a proper usage of that tag.
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
...and snow is white and Tom Cruise is a closeted homosexual. Tell us something we don't know.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.
I'm starting to think Microoft might not have my best interest at heart?
This is getting worse than Zune news.
No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press. At best all of this is blind supposition and wasted mental bandwidth.
If all of the effort that went into these various prognostications of impending doom had been spent on coding we'd all be a lot better off.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I can't seem to find this pledge for hobbyist contributors.
It's called 'dedicating' it. No restrictions.
It shows people people that your patent was only filed to prevent other people from patenting the idea and causing trouble. People tend to look very favorably on dedications.
Groklaw also raised questions about Novell's deal:
I found that this blog was kind of interesting in the sense that it clears up a bunch of things that people are worried about. However, I think that at the same time, there are a lot of people going 'where the heck is the PROOF of the patients!?' I'd like to have SM give some of the patients that they claim are being infringed upon and then I might be willing to loosen up on the whole idea. At the same time however, I think that there is something that people have to realize, and that is, like it or not, there is going to be some changes in Novell, and I know that people are going to think that that would then mean that they are in Microsoft's pocket, there is nothing that can really support that as of now. I am going to take this whole thing with an open mind and at the same time, a dash of skepticism and a hint of hope that it is going to be different than before with other companies.
..and snow is white. Tell us something we don't know.
here's some other information on MS patents http://www.s5h.net/linux_news_reader_article_5505. html. MS seem to be getting patents in huge swarms right now. it's quite sickening.
i think there should be new ammendments to prevent ms from applying for more patents. they are taking the piss, literally.
Why UNIX?
I thought that Patent Law did not apply to anything you produced yourself for yourself anyway. To my understanding it can only apply to what you give to others, i.e. it is the *transaction* that patent law protects against, not the base existence.
So, in other words, this "Patent Protection" clause is not only useless, but possibly fraud in trying to claim that without it they could sue you for work you did for yourself.
Erich Boleyn
Grease and bucketloads of cash? Sounds like a new game show to me!
It's not white where the huskys go.
Hell is thawing.
You are stand correct. Useless story. Welcome to the Hellmouth, Slashdot U.S.A.
Can we mod down tags? This is getting ridiculous.
Business and hippies don't mix. It's like oil and water.
The point is, open source people _aren't_ hippies. They've been running successful businesses for years now. But microsoft wants them to be hippies, wants the world to believe them to be - and now, is trying to make them be, using software patent monopolies to shut down open source businesses. The message is "if you're a hippie hobbyist coder, we won't sue you. But dare to build a business, and we will". Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software.
"hippy and communist" are just wrong when applied to free software folk: "Raging gun-nut libertarian" is far more accurate. Microsoft are playing with fire.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" is also not interesting, since it covers the transfer of code from an author to SUSE, and only that and nothing else.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors" is referenced from the above one. This should be the one that is covering the community distribution part. But is missing on the Microsoft website: Either it doesn't exist at all and the reference is a mistake, or there is a reason why it was left out from the web.
Has anyone managed to find it? Why Bradley Kuhn doesn't mention it?
Is there a leper colony available to send bad/sick/naughty Linux companies to?
People need to vote with their pocketbook and put Novell out of business, ASAFP.
I think it's clear that they meant to use "Non-Compensated Developers" instead of "Hobbyist Contributors" in that sentence, based on the pattern for describing the "Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" provision they expect those developers to use. Although they bungled it again by referring elsewhere to "Non-Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer" right before that. :) I bet they went through several revisions of that "pledge" and never bothered cleaning it up. But since the "Hobbyist" pledge doesn't exist, it can't be binding...hmmm.
Microsoft "Worse Than Useless"
Just out of curiousity, anyone have any real proof, like legal proof, of microsoft hurting open source developers? Or is this the typical fear mongering, conspiracy theory stuff that is normal slashdot?
...does Microsoft determine if YOU are allowed to code at home/bedroom/cellar/tent/train ~ whatever and decide that what you code is theirs to make a judgement on and assume ownership?
What terrible arrogance.
"Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software."
Bingo. A point I have been trying to make for what seems like ages.
There are no free markets when it comes to goods protected by copyrights or patents. With copyleft you can perhaps get close to a free market in those goods.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Speaking of SCO... Does Novell have any kind of claim to the allegedly stolen code that SCO said IBM put into Linux?
Haven't the fanbois here continually told us that MS would never sue anybody for patents and that they patents were for defensive purposes only? Where are those shills and astro turfers now?
evil is as evil does
No. US Patent Law does not make any such distinction or exception for private home use. You can be infringing if you mass produce 100 billion copies to sell, or if you just "practice" the art in the privacy of you own home. Granted, the likelihood of any bad consequences for infringing (or even anyone finding out you're infringing) are not at all equal.
But I think this commonly held misconception might be one reason why the general public sees nothing wrong with patents...they think it only applies if you're trying to make money off the idea or running a company, e.g., it doesn't apply to them so why care. But a patent is an absolute abridgment of freedom, and really has nothing to do with money or intent at all, nor does it have anything to do with stealing (like copyright or trade secrets) as you can unknowingly infringe even if you thought up the idea all by yourself. Of course any legal remidies, actions, rewards, etc may be based on money and scale, but not the determination if you're guilty of infringement or not.
IANAL applies, but I have read through the US Law as best as I could understand it. If somebody more knowing than me knows something else, please be kind and point out exactly where in the law such distrinction is made because I can't find it.
All 'evil empire' stuff aside, why should they even want to be nice to OSS? They are out to make money and any competition stands in the way.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mod parent up.
This seems rather much ado about nothing, from my uneducated glances over the wording.
Basically, this agreement is saying that Microsoft won't wield patents against those contributing software to OpenSuSE until after the Microsoft-Novell deal runs out or you try to wield patents against MS themselves.
But, really, what was the situation before? Either you wrote software that DIDN'T violate MS patents, or you DID and just hoped like hell that they wouldn't use their patents to sue you. There is a false sense of security in violating MS patents because there is a perceived "MAD" policy of MS's patent farms versus IBM/Novell/etc.'s patents, but, realistically, there's no saying they'd come to your rescue if you contributed something to an open source project.
So really, how does this change the strategy of contributing to linux through open source projects or the kernel itself? Either don't violate patents or hope they won't wield them against you. Either route you choose hasn't been closed by this agreement between Microsoft and Novell.
If M$ wanted to help, they would deregister the patents. You will get sued, period.
Microsoft does't need to be alcoholic, but just so they drink the wine from Linuxland advertised at http://www.winehq.co
Please name one company, group, organization, or institution which has partnered with Microsoft which did not end up getting screwed. Among the losers, IBM, Stac and Sybase come immediately to mind.
To be fair, these are all stupid questions. The answers are obviously no, irrelevant, and no. A contract is not binding on you if any of the following are true:
According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute.
You know, I can build anything damn thing I want to with my Craftsman tool set and sell it. Sears has never had to promise that they won't sue me. I can even build, sell, and distribute competing products as long as its done under a different brand name.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting all those nice shareware programs built for Windows that added value to the platform (Paintshop, Pkzip, TextPad etc). I wonder if those applications would have been written if the Programmers thought they were going be sued by distributing them.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Why now, at this point in time are Linux developers being threatened in this way? Why not last year? Why not two, five years ago?
I reckon they are terrified about Vista... They're terrified it'll be a dead loss with millions jumping ship to Linux. They're trying to fence of Linux from their ex-customers in advance of it's release.
Deleted
How the bloody hell is this a troll??? (Except for the idiotic 1337 spelling of "fanboy".)
It's a troll because the implication is that there are lawsuits when, in fact, there are not.
You're right...
...we need more hippy coders!
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I know MS lawyers have claimed that Microsoft has never sued someone over Patent infringement unless it was a counter suit. In other words, I believe it is MS policy to use patents as a defense. The only reason they even need to use it as a defense is they are a huge target due to their large bank accounts. This is not to say they don't license patents if someone wishes to license them, and it's not to say their policy will never change. In fact Bill Gates however has spoken out for patent reform to reduce the patent trolling. While MS certainly seems to love the DMCA and Copyright law, I don't believe they love patents as much as everyone seems to think they do.
Huh? when? where? In Antarctica? On Mars?
Anywhere patent or copyright monopolies exist, you moron. By definition. Most places claiming to be capitalist free markets are no more capitalist than china is really communist.
Unfortunately, you've got it backwards. Microsoft has said that they're not going to enforce those patents. On the other hand, VA Software (the owner of Slashdot) has said publically that they will aggressively prosecute people who violate their patents.
Pretty sneaky, huh? Maybe you (and the other lemmings in your group) should try to do some reading once in a while. Your knees have got to be getting tired from all of that jerking.
Free market mean FREE. When someone says "you can't" then it's not FREE. Patent and copyright are LAWS which means they say "you can't".
Free market isn't defined as whatever the Republican's spout. Just like Communism isn't whatever the USSR spouted.
No, not really. Novell is acting as if its Suse customers have granted Novell the Power of Attorney when, obviously, that never happened. The questions simply draw the attention to that fact.
See, if they dedicate the patent then they can't sue ANYONE over it. That's not very Microsoft-like. Pass up on the peanuts (hobbyists), and sue the cash cows (like the hobbyists that manage to make a successful product and make money). Besides, the next few years will either make or break Microsoft. They'd be fools not to know that. If things go rocky, they'll do what all the other failed tech companies do: fire off their developers, hire lawyers, and just squat on their patents. If they dedicate their patents, they kill plan B altogether.
Even if it was legally possible, how is MS going to find out about me violating their retroactive patent on sudo (oops, loose lips!) in order to sue me, if I'm not allowed to distribute the result?
For somebody who claims that it is possible to sue someone for private use, can you point me to a case where such a case was successfully prosecuted?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I'm still not sure why people are scared about this Novell/M$ deal. I'm a nub to the Linux (SuSe) community and I'm excited about this deal. A lot of end users like M$ products and this will make it easier for IT to give them what they want from a Linux back end. If M$ then sues said IT for using compatibality software to allow MS/Linux integration, said IT will then just return to previously used Open Source solutions/applications. M$ would be shooting theselves in the foot by said lawsuit and only causing a slight burdon to the IT community. I haven't quite "connected the dots" in how M$ will then own the SuSe version of Linux, or any other distro. Help me to understand why I should be scared of this deal. Thanks
Ballmer promised to sue. I think it's safe to presume that the company will sue after the CEO says they are going to.
evil is as evil does
It seems to me that what their "pledge" is saying is that if I develop any software on a Novell system and distribute it (by giving it away or selling it), Microsoft will prosecute me. My only defense is to make sure that I haven't had access to any Microsoft stuff. So obviously I should just refuse to develop anything on a Novell system. I should just stick to systems for which the OS and libraries are all GPL'd.
Is this the basic import of this story?
If so, it seems that Novell has just signed their own death warrant.
In any case, until I get a reliable (i.e., from a knowledgeable lawyer), I probably won't be using anything from Novell in the future.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You have an idiotic sig.
/proc and /sys, so when a driver problem arises you know why and you just fix the appropriate part and it works. You don't even need to reboot if the driver was modularized.
When there's a problem with Windows drivers, you can spend all day going around the reboot loop dozens of times with no idea whatsoever what the problem is (because the event log and device manager have been dumbed down for grannies and hence are utterly useless), and just merely changing things in case that solves it.
In Linux, you always have complete visibility of everything in the O/S through dmesg, system logs,
So, if your time is worth something, the last thing you want to do is to use Windows. It simply has no concept of giving users the information they need, so it wastes your time continually, by design.
Obviously. Especially if said developer is just writing stuff for use on his own machine. Utilities & apps that don't make it into the wild are no threat, and thus, unimportant from a cash flow point of view, and won't be sued. People only sue when there are monetary & tactical advantages to sue. If there's no money involved, a suit is not just a waste of time, it's a waste of money and resources, which cuts down the bottom line. The stockholders would Not Be Pleased...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I violated a few months ago after a late-night bicycle ride. Come sue me!
The USPTO is ridiculous and honestly I would not worry about Microsoft's patents in the slightest; they have the sword of antitrust dangling over their heads.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Don't eat the yellow snow!
...or so I've been told.
Qualifier: I work for a company that has dealings with Novell. However, I'm near the bottom, so it's not like Novell going completely under would kill me or anything. My company could eventually migrate away from SuSe Linux without "too" much pain.
Now, that being said, let me get to the point (and please don't mod this as flame bait because I'm just trying to give my honest opinion.
I'm excited about this Novell/M$ deal. I'm excited about it because it will allow IT departments to give their end users the M$ applications (most office drones do like them) they want. Now, lets get down to this lawsuit business. Hypothetically, lets pretend M$ decides to sue a company for coupleing their applications with a non-Suse distro if Linux. They could manage to squeeze all the money from their bank account (sorry guys/coal mine canaries). This however would never go unnoticed by the business world. It would trigger every company running M$ applications on a non-SuSe back ends to dump their M$ applications an revert to their old OSS applications (if they're running Linux backend, they probably ran a Linux front end at one time). This would be a painful switch, but not the end of the world for them.
M$ is trying to get the Linux community to adopt their applications. We're obviously not going to touch their OS. The money they get from that first lawsuit would never equil the revenue they receive from the expanding Linux community using their applications. It would be very "penny-wise pound-foolish" to choose the money from that one lawsuit over continued revenue in application sales (and it would not take more then one or two of these lawsuits to scare every IT department away from M$ applications forever).
So, here's to a brand new day. Lets drink to not being the first company eaten by the M$ wolf.
"I don't have to outrun the troll, I just have to outrun you"
Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer.
This from the man who believes that the GPL is the only FOSS license with the right to exist.
Mr. Kuhn, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as Microsoft are themselves. In fact, you are moreso. At least Microsoft do not try and pretend to be anything other than what they are. You are not one micron less a fascist...merely from a different direction.
You can take your warped, cultic distortion of the word "freedom," and cram it where you feel most appropriate. You and Richard Stallman are open source's answer to David Miscavige and L. Ron. Hubbard, respectively. You are the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back.
Some who use Linux with the total inability to think for themselves may delude themselves that they need to use your brain and Stallman's in leiu of their own. I am not among such people, and I defy, reject, and repudiate both you, Stallman, and the entirely *false* freedom which the FSF stands for. You would have us reject Microsoft as our masters, only to install yourselves in their place.
You do not speak for everyone who uses open source. You most certainly do not speak for me.
"Raging gun-nut libertarian" is far more accurate.
Mr. Raymond? Is that you?
"A method of eliminating soluble waste products". From here the US patent system looks likely to accept an application for it.
"The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution."
True. Even worse, they're pledging not to do something that they can't do anyway! The grant of the patent was done in exchange for teaching me how to implement and use the invention. They cannot prevent me from learning it, they can only prevent me from using the knowledge in a manner that infringes on their granted rights.
"You are not one micron less a fascist...merely from a different direction"
When did he ever threaten MS with litigation for having FOSS intellectual property in Windows.
was Re:Evil on one side, evil on the other
davecb5620@gmail.com
Novell is aready telling their customers that their product is 'safe from litigation'. That is enough to boycott them.
Now, it they start behaving nicely again, we can change our mind latter... There is just no reason to wait.
Rethinking email
Thats a terribly immature and short-sighted view. Copyrights/patents are intended to do one thing, to ensure that if you build a better mouse-trap, the world makes a beaten path to your door. Without copyrights any other person could come along, copy your work and have the same popular work, but with none of the costs or risks that go into such endevours.
That the two legal devices in question have been mis-used by some parties is not in doubt, however the reason for their existance is not for such abuse, but to protect legitimate inventions that others would not have arrived at. The GPL itself relies heavily on copyright law to prevent abuses by others, for without copyright law people could simply take Linux, improve upon it and retain their own improvements without distributing them.
Copyrights and patents are needed in this world if we're to have a culture of innovation. People don't just do things for the greater good, never have, never will.
Regards,
-Steve Gray
The GPL itself relies heavily on copyright law to prevent abuses by others, for without copyright law people could simply take Linux, improve upon it and retain their own improvements without distributing them.
That is an exact desceiption of one thing that the GPL says you can do. The right to make modifications for one's own use without having to disclose them is a "must have" requirement for being deemed by the FSF to be free software.
While the Patent Act doesn't provide such an exemption, case law used to. A concise summary: "Early U.S. judicial decisions spoke approvingly of a common law-based doctrine that would exempt unlicensed uses of patented technology for purposes of scientific experimentation or purely personal use. More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which since 1982 has exercised exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over patent-based appeals, has also recognized the experimental use exemption. The court interprets the exemption so narrowly, however, that for all practical purposes it has become a nullity." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =691424
:-)
So when I learned about the personal tinkering exemption in school in the 70's, it was still useful. But today it's so restricted that it practically doesn't exist.
(IANAL - I learned all my law from Groklaw