Slashdot Mirror
Google Partners With OIN For Linux
lymeca writes "Groklaw reports that Google has become the Open Invention Network's first end-user licensee. The OIN was established by companies such as IBM, Red Hat, and somewhat ironically Novell to accumulate patents and license them royalty-free to any company promising not to leverage their own patent portfolio against key applications available on GNU/Linux, including many GNU projects as well as Linux itself. Google's support bolsters the OIN's effectiveness as a shield against patent attacks against GNU/Linux and many popular applications that run on it."
OK, I've been thinking about this setup for at least five minutes now, and I admit, it seems like a genuinely good idea (the OIN bit, not just the Google going for it bit). Companies using their patent portfolios to shut down patent trolling is this =>= close to giving me a warm fuzzy right under the cockles of my heart.
So what's the catch? What am I missing, here, that turns this from an actual Good Thing for the software community (with concomitant benefits to the involved organizations, of course) into an attempt to rape the commons for short-term profit? Or is my cynicism, for possibly the first time ever, completely unwarranted?
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Is the buyer bound by Google's promises?
For that matter, is *Google* actually legally
bound by a promise to not use patents against any
particular person/group/corporation?
I get the feeling the OIN is a feel-good thing,
and actually doesn't have any legal teeth in it.
This OIN arrangement may be effective at bolstering defenses against patent aggression but it does nothing to defend against flying chairs!
Although I appreciate your differences with RMS, the tendency for the FSF to divide and separate GNU and Linux goes back almost to the birth of Linus' first Linux kernel, because the FSF and Linus have important differences of opinion regarding software, and because GNU is hoped to be bigger than Linux, or at least not limited to Linux.
I have no problem with GNU and Linux shown together in the parent. It will help us understand the different players, and the different philosophies in the F/OSS arena.
Once upon a time, Linux was THE example of FOSS to me. I learned that FOSS movement and the philosophy that gave birth to it are older than Linux. Yeah, that's lame of me. But we all have to start somewhere.
I may learn a great deal, too, from replies to this post... Or I might unlearn some things I thought I knew.
But Gnu is not unix! This is Gnu is not unix it is Linux!
What would they call the training arm of OIN? Open Invention Network Knowledge?
IP-investing FOSS-patent-acumulating Google overlords!
-WtC
*please insert sig*
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
Hmm, nope. Linux is only a tiny little part of a typical system. The largest part by far is GCC, which is arguably the most complex software project in the world. Therefore names like GNU/VxWorks, GNU/BSD and GNU/Linux are good names and give credit where it is due.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
That was his response when OIN was formed. Linux and Free Software do not, repeat DO NOT ned the OIN for gaining mindshare or marketshare - the OIN is largely a distraction sponsored by an elite club, at odds with reality.
Now that GPL3 has neutered patent threats from Microsoft, Google's tie-up with the OIN seems actually a bad PR move.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
If using the compiler is a determining factor, then I've developed on both GNU/OSX and GNU/Windows! If cross compiling counts, I've even used GNU/Palm!
What kind of software does OIN protect?
Any Open Source non-profit software? If yes, then it is good. If on the other hand it only protects the software distributed in Novel/RH distributions, we are screwed. Because the kernel hackers and the friends of OIN will support the absurd idea of software patents while the rest of us will be on our own.
Why doesn't OIN protect MPlayer for a start?
While it is true that GNU is the largest part of a typical distribution, technically the OS is the layer that runs between the hardware and the system software. I quote the Wikipedia article referenced above:
"Operating Systems themselves have no user interfaces; the user of an OS is an application, not a person. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS are some of the most popular OSes."
As such, the Linux OS is the kernel. The kernel has nothing to do with GNU. If you want to run a GNU OS, run the HURD kernel.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
So, A.C., I see we meet again!
...unless you think you're a Seymour Cray and can hand-toggle in disk I/O and such things, of course...
If you do in fact run the Linux kernel on your computer, why don't you take your own advice and "Please Stop Using 'GNU/Linux'" ?
I mean, if you want to just call it Linux, why don't you just rip out all of the GNU utilities that make it usable by mere mortals such as us?
Is RMS a bit outlandish? Oh, certainly.
Is Linus also, shall we say...hmm...eccentric? Indubitably.
Of course, they're both brilliant geeks and we have both of them -- plus thousands of other people -- to thank for the sweet operating system we all know and love. At the end of the day all of us geeks know that the "Linux" operating system isn't just the work of Linus and the kernel team. But do other people know that? Maybe giving a little credit back isn't such a bad idea.
coding is life
Why dont we just name windows GNU/Windows because I have mingw installed on it?
There as needs to be a line and calling something gnu means the product itself is gnu is what RMS is trying to say. Linux could exist without gnu just thank you if BSD libc libraries were used as well as numerous free c compilers have been on the net for awhile.
http://saveie6.com/
Trying to promote Linux in the business world, it should just be called "Linux" as a whole, especially for marketing reasons. Put all politics aside because the common people will always know it as Linux and it already is being promoted as that in system requirements for electronic products.
It's your old friend AC, you noticed. Why feed the troll?
Anyways, there are a lot of folks to thank for the stuff making your computer go. The FSF and the Linux kernel people come to mind. The X.org people, too. The KDE people. I could go on a while.
They should all be given credit where credit was due. But that doesn't mean I should say that my computer runs GNU/Linux/X11/KDE every time I need to name my operating system. It doesn't take credit away from the X.org people to tell someone I run GNU/Linux, and it doesn't take credit away from the FSF people when I say I run Linux.
Would I be critical of someone for using the term GNU/Linux like the flamebait parent? No. It's a fair enough term, and one I sometimes use.
Does it make sense to be critical of people for calling their GNU/Linux/X11 systems Linux? I don't see why. They aren't taking away any credit from anyone, just using what has happened to become common parlance.
Since the OIN is Linux only, how can this be reconciled with the GPL?
Richard Stallman took lots of things that were already free software (X11, for instance) and integrated them into GNU. Does that mean that GNU should call itself GNU/X11? That's what his logic implies.
if you dont like GNU youre gonna love HURD:
"According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd:
`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms."
its so magnificently geeky it should be the standard by which all else is measured.
seriously tho, using GNU/Linux is a nod to the massive contributions from the gnu project, which, in contrast to your petty objections, is not irrelevant.
Ummm... Nope, you have not.
Windows itself is not compiled with GCC. However, GNU/OSX seems a fair name.
I was using Linux long before the "command" from Stallman to use the term GNU/Linux when referring to Linux. I never bought into it, though, and I never will.
:-) Just give up on the GNU/Linux thing already!
The reason is this - when GNU software was first written, it was deployed by many people on many different platforms. I personally used GNU software extensively on both Sun's SunOS and DEC's VMS platforms quite a while before I started using Linux. During the time that it was being used on other platforms, I never once heard RMS say that something should be called GNU/SunOS or GNU/VMS, simply due to the large number of his utilities that were running on them. The same utilities (ls, gzip, tar, etc) were being used with proprietary kernels as are now used on Linux.
It's a "sour grapes" and a vanity thing, IMHO. Hurd was in development, but was a long way from being done. Linus stepped up with a kernel that worked. Suddenly a complete "free" OS is a viable option. Even though RMS conceived of it much earlier, Linus set into motion the completely "free" (as in speech) OS movement. So suddenly the utilities are being used with a free kernel not of RMS's making. It's more than a little embarrassing for RMS, I'm sure. And it took quite a while for him to come forward and make the proclamation about using the term "GNU/Linux". In fact, it took Linux really taking off in popularity - why didn't he say something immediately?
The kernel could work without the utilities [though it admittedly wouldn't be particularly useful), but not vice versa. So when you are trying to change people's perceptions by creating a new free system *and you want to be given credit for it,* it would make sense to me to build the most important part, the kernel, first! Otherwise, live by the mantra that you've been spouting for years and give people the freedom to call Linux Linux.
Just my $0.02. I still respect you, RMS!
Another name for OIN is GNU/Linux Open Invention Network (GLOIN). I've also heard rumors that the companies involved are going to create a group to endorse the increased usage of Linux on Internet servers. It'll be called the Greater Internet Mobilization of Linux Initiative (GIMLI).
Rob
Everything that you've said seems fair. But where it isn't fair is when some newspaper or magazine or FOSS users who just don't know any better first call the whole OS Linux and then go on to say that Linus invented it.
It can't be both. Either it's just the kernel and Linus made it, or it's the OS and Stallman, Linus and a bunch of other people made it. And I'm not saying that you did this in your post. It just ticks me off when I see a journalist do that in print.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I mainly continue to call my OS GNU/Linux because I use Debian and that's what they call it.
:-)
I agree that everyone calling there OS "Linux/A Little KDE/Some X/And, of course a lot of GNU!" would be rediculous but if a distro (like Debian) specifically brands there product GNU/Linux then that's what it's called, love it or hate it.
Taking offense at my simple take on this matter seems pretty stupid to me... Conversely I don't worry if someone calls a Debian distro "Linux". I may silently correct them in my head, but it doesn't bother me
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Unix-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth
Interfaces Representing Depth of Unix-Replacing Daemons
I'm going to need a translator here...
I see "GNU/Linux" mostly as a historical concept. both the Linux and GNU projects originally had little do do with each other. GNU was one operating system, and Minix was another. The operating system I have today, is a result of the two projects being merged. (The Linux kernel combined with the userland that the GNU project had been putting together (though I don't think all, or even most, of it was FSF code) ). Thus GNU and Linux can be seen as the parents of the GNU/Linux operating system. Calling it "GNU/Linux" is not so much a statement of what is, but rather where it came from.
That said, I'm far too lazy to call it anything other than "Linux" except when I find it necessary.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
I don't think anything will end up being called GNU except GNU. GNU/Linux is Linux, GNU/Win32 is Cygwin. What will GNU/Hurd be called?
BTW can Cygwin run on WINE?
IMO, it makes sense to say GNU/Linux when you are referring to a GNU system running on Linux. This is different from, say, a few GNU utilities being used on Solaris, or some PicoGUI/Busybox/Linux combination. Linux really is the kernel, and it can be used in a lot of interesting ways that do not involve GNU. A lot of software that runs on "Linux" really runs on GNU. That same software would happily compile and run on a GNU OS with a different kernel, but not on Linux with a different userland.
What I am trying to get at is that it is useful to call things by their right names for technical reasons.
``The kernel could work without the utilities [though it admittedly wouldn't be particularly useful), but not vice versa.''
Wrong. Large parts (if not all) of GNU work fine without Linux. As you should know, having used them...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Linux is "just" the kernel
and GNU is what makes it useful.
But, I gotta agree that it seems unnecessarily confusing using that as the name of the system, especially if you want to promote the use of this great software combination. Because by consequently using the GNU/Linux term, you make people feel stupid and start telling the history of the OS already before they get started, it would be like if you had to say DOS/Windows or NEXT/MacOS each and every time you mention it.
I don't think it looks or sounds retarded, my only issue with it is relevance, because the people, to which this information matters, knows perfectly well what GNU is and the philosophy behind it.
So I'm a supporter of FOSS which is not only free and open about software, but also open to outsiders and new users, not trying to isolate itself into its core user base of developers and idealists. I also welcome commercial/closed source software for the platform, also closed source drivers, it's the freedom of choice for the developers of this kind of software, what license they choose for their own work, of course they must comply with the licenses of what they use to create this software, that's the rules of the copyright game. Then let the users be free to choose whether to use this commercial/closed source software or use the open alternative, to me the freedom of the platform is for everyone, whether they're open or closed source developers or end users.
All I'm saying is that by just using the term Linux, it all seems much more accessible, let people get introduced to the community and its history at their own pace, it may benefit FOSS as a whole.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
The one right up there by your name, "gregandmarci.com"... time to pay that registration, bud. :D
;) )
(Unless, of course, you own register.com/NetSol, and just put that link there there so that the REAL greg would see it, and pay his overdue fees...
And in the dark depths of a Microsoft coders' dungeo^Wbaseme^Wlounge, there was a soft chuckle of an aged coder. His slavedr^Wsupervisor pulled out his wh^H^Hchair and approached him menacingly.
S: "What is so funny?"
C: "Look at this comment! If only they knew..."
S: "What are you blabbering about, old fool? Has all that caffeine rotted your brain? It's true, Windows itself is not compiled with GCC."
C: "True, it is not. It is compiled with the Visual C compiler. But haven't you ever wondered what was the Visual C compiler compiled with? Ever since we ditched Borland's compiler, we had to use something...
Ignore this signature. By order.
Essentially, OIN sounds like it's got this big honey-pot of patents, and it's using it to bribe people who Lunix has ripped off.
Isn't that bribery?
Now granted it still ends up as a quid-pro-quo arrangement, but let's call it what it is: Lunix ripped them off, so OIN is settling the bill... after the fact.
Linux is about 3% of the code in a typical Linux distribution. GNU is about 28%.
... GNU/Solaris is a good example ... but a Linux system without GNU? What would it do? In actual fact, it is Linux that is irrelevant and meaningless without GNU.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
"Linux is what it is, using GNU/ in front of it is irrelevant and meaningless" --- Err, no.
You can have a GNU system without Linux
GNU/Hurd is simply known as GNU, or the GNU OS. Hurd is a GNU project, and hence does not gain separate mention.
In contrast, GNU/Linux is so called because it would be wrong for the FSF to claim ownership over Linux and call the whole thing GNU. They give Linux credit by acknowledging it separately, using a slash (or a + sign in some cases) to indicate that they don't own it. If they were claiming ownership they'd be saying "GNU Linux", not "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux". RMS is very careful to pronounce the slash (or plus) in his speech.
"Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft." - Linus Torvalds, 'Notes for linux release 0.01', 1991
OLPC Australia
Sorry to ruin the gag, but probably the Visual C compiler.
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
"somewhat ironically Novell" -- yes, somewhat. What is Sony doing there?
Well, duh, Captain Obvious...
Ignore this signature. By order.
This is a perennial problem of science/tech journalism: most journalists, funnily enough, trained to write about stuff, not actually know about stuff. You can pretty much blag it in most areas, but there needs to be a certain level of understanding that you need before you can jump in and write about science and, to a lesser degree, technology. It's quite rare that this occurs, at least in mainstream media.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
Problem with proprietary device drivers is if they're kernel modules (most are). That means they link to a piece of GPL'd software -- you are therefore violating copyright to license that module under anything but the GPL.
So proprietary device drivers are illegal.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
It goes on after this, but for me, the definition is complete in the first sentence. After all, there is also a GNU/Hurd flavor to Debian. But the operating system is referred to well enough by the simple term "Debian".
Sure they are illegal, if not wrapped up properly, however, nVidia's common driver platform is designed to be wrapped up with gluecode, and so their gluecode is opensource for Linux, thus legal. Some may say it's a dirty trick, but i believe many corporations says the same about not being able to write drivers for a GPL'ed kernel without revealing their secrets. This fight between community and corporations is not benefitting anyone, is it? Of course no one should steal code, that'd be unfair, but I vote for equal freedom for all.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
Terms like GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd would be especially useful when distinguishing the projects, but using them outside of that distinction is not unfair, and it does align with the way the Debian folks use language.
Here's the whole thing for anyone who doesn't feel like visiting the site: What is Debian?
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.
Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine. But if you want to refer to Debian GNU/Linux as just Linux, that's OK, I won't hold it against you. Anymore then I would be upset with you telling me you run Hurd, instead of Debain GNU/Hurd.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal