Red Hat Makes a GPL-Compatible Patent Deal

Bruce Perens writes "Red Hat has settled patent suits with Firestar Software, Inc., Amphion, and Datatern on a patent covering the Object-Relational Database Model, which those companies asserted was used in the jBoss Hibernate package — not in Red Hat Linux. The settlement is said to protect upstream developers and derivative works of the upstream software, thus protecting the overall Open Source community. Full terms of the settlement and patent licenses are not available at this time." Reader Koohoolinn adds a link to RedHat's own report of the settlement and adds that the deal "is GPLv2 and even GPLv3-compatible." Koohoolinn also points out commentary on Groklaw that this deal "means that those who claim the GPL isolates itself from standards bodies' IP pledges are wrong. It is possible to come up with language that satisfies the GPL and still acknowledges patents, and this is the proof. That means Microsoft could do it for OOXML if it wanted to. So who is isolating whom?"

Comments

This is SO EXCITING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am SOOOO excited that this magnificent event has taken place in MY LIFETIME !! I will name my first son GPL-compatible Patent Deal to mark this magnificent event for all OUR LIFETIMES !!

Ms. Deal

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[lahvak]

Is the son going to be GPL'd? In other words, can I reuse half of his genetic information to produce my own version? Will you provide an access to the source?

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[dmbasso]

be careful, you didn't specify which half you want... ;)

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[Bruce Perens]

Dear Son,

It's time you paid the royalties you owe on my DNA. After all, you're running half of it in each and every one of your cells, clearly an unlicensed derivative work. And don't you dare "make it available" without a license!

Dad

:-)

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[lahvak]

Dear Dad,

Make sure you won't end up like SCO.

Son.

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear "Dad",

Close analysis seems to suggest that your claim to your genome is unlikely to be enforceable to any usable degree. Over 96% of your genome also appears in the genome of chimpanzees, raising the question of the basic validity of your claim in view of the vast range of prior art appearing in the field. In addition, the behavior expressed in the implementation of the genome is almost totally modeled on the behavior of prior implementations; for instance, the behavior of using a stick to probe for termites is a clear precursor to using a lawyer to probe for monetizable intangibles.

In addition, the source of the other DNA used to develop me points out that it is self-evident that your DNA could not have been used in my development, if only because she characterized yours as belonging to a "knuckle-dragging ape" as opposed to that provided by the engineering grad student she gave her virginity to when you were passed out on beer at Homecoming.

In short, I would refer your counsel to Arkell v. Pressdram in the British courts.

Sincerely not-all-that-much-yours,

Son

Re:This is SO EXCITING !!

[gstoddart]

Dear Son,
It's time you paid the royalties you owe on my DNA. After all, you're running half of it in each and every one of your cells, clearly an unlicensed derivative work. And don't you dare "make it available" without a license!

Dad :-)

Dear Dad,

As your 'property' was provided freely in collaboration with Mom with no stipulated conditions at time of release, my DNA can be considered to be the results of a legitimate collaborative effort and a voluntary submission. Therefore, it is presumptive that a co-licensing agreement was implicit at time of production.

While I will refrain from directly competing with you in this market place, I do reserve the right to produce a limited amount of derivative works, and long as I do not use it for commercial purposes.

Also, I will be making it available for limited distribution for experimental purposes to the first girl willing to have it. However, I will make efforts to ensure that no further copies are created.

Son.

Re:NeXT EOF?

[Miseph]

Didn't you get the memo, Apple are so nice and fair that they would always happily lend a hand to other large corporations with or without any kind of motive or incentive. They'd also never engage in vendor lock in, or support DRM to keep software from being used in unapproved ways or on unapproved hardware.

This is just common knowledge.