Slashdot Mirror
TomTom Can License FAT Without Violating the GPL
dp619 writes "Capped per-unit royalties make FAT licensing agreements permissible under the GPL, and SD Times has found that Microsoft's public license policy caps royalties at $250k. If the royalties are capped — as they seem to be — TomTom should be able to license FAT without violating the GPL. And if that is the case ... TomTom needs some serious explaining to do as to why they aren't licensing FAT. That said, Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms."
This story is nonsense.
First, to be sued you have to have someone willing to sue you. That would be the copyright holders of the GPL code that can't be distributed. They are:
Werner Almesberger
Gordon Chaffee
Wolfram Pienkoss
OGAWA Hirofumi
Those are the listed authors of the vfat code in the Linux kernel.
I don't see why those folks would want to sue TomTom. In general the kernel team isn't interested in suing to enforce the GPL, and the only person to bring such a suit, Harald Welte of gpl-violations.org, isn't involved with this code.
One of the possibilities in this case is that other companies than TomTom want to see the patents in question invalidated, and don't want to see TomTom bought by Microsoft, and will help TomTom with funds, etc. Whatever agreements go on about that will happen behind closed doors.
TomTom probably would not want to pay a capped royalty of a quarter million for something as bad as the FAT patents without at least exploring any less expensive paths to invalidate the patent. Like the Doctrine of Laches, for example. That code has been in the kernel longer than the usual Laches interval, which in general would hand MS and automatic loss.
Less expensive ways to win, in this case, may also mean "with someone else's money".
A capped royalty payment is in general NOT in compliance with the GPL version 2. What is "fixed" in GPL3 is the Novell loophole of licensing customers of the other company rather than the other company directly. Microsoft is not required to offer TomTom a license that uses the Novell loophole. Whatever they offer TomTom may still be out of compliance with GPL2. But that doesn't matter if the developers don't want to sue.
Jeremy is either being misquoted (likely) or he's a bit off-base this time.
Bruce Perens.
Just switch file systems. Seriously, why the hell are you using FAT anyway.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Can someone explain to me if this suit is over the driver or the FAT formatted storage?
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Most likely the "cap" only applies to TomTom, not other 'licensees' of the software. For example, if TomTom sold a program to another company that relies on FAT technology, and the other company develops a different product based on the same kernel, Microsoft (if they follow common practice) would require the second company to license the FAT technology, to ship a product based on it.
Unless their standard agreement would allow TomTom to sublicense the technology, and include an unlimited royalty-free license when they distribute the Linux source code that corresponds to the software they are shipping in binary form, then the "capped" license still violates the GPL.
The GPL doesn't say you can distribute software under the GPL with capped royalties.
The only way this works is if TomTom pays the full $250,000, and gets unlimited licensing for them and all recipients of the software from them.
TomTom cannot require people who receive source code under GPL terms to report when they redistribute, in order for TomTom to pay for another license. The reporting requirement would be in violation of the GPL.
See the GPL version 2 (which applies to the Linux kernel), these are some quotes from the License:
They are the victim of an attempted extortion racket over a couple of bogus patents. Why on earth should extortion victims have to explain why they didn't just pay up instead of taking the bastards to court?
The Microsoft v Tom-Tom suit covers a half-dozen or so patents, only two of them FAT-related. (Besides which, the FAT patent has been thrown out in Germany.) Most if not all of them are obvious or have prior art, like the FAT patents, and may well not hold up under Bilski. What does it gain Tom-Tom to license a (potential invalidatable) patent like FAT if they're still being sued over half a dozen others? If they have to go to court anyway, might as well try to get them all overturned - they can always offer to settle later.
-- Alastair
The memory cards / SD cards use fat
Or just maybe it's because people expect to be able to see some files when they plug their GPS receivers into their Windows machines. If Windows had an Ext2 driver bundled with it, I wouldn't ever format a USB drive as FAT either.
>I don't see why those folks would want to sue TomTom.
How is this germane?
Microsoft has already sued TomTom.
You seem to be arguing from a premise you have yet to state.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Why wouldn't they want to sue? Lots of people would love to see the Microsoft patent get invalidated, of those lots of people are confident it will be. If that number out of the original population is greater than 25%, there's a 1 in four, or real, chance one of those guys wants to sue, on principle if not on principal. I'm sure they would likewise get financial help from others to fight just like TomTom would, just different sources.
Sue TomTom and let them decide to take their chances with copyright law or open source law, one being rather established and one rather less so. End result is the same, only TomTom does it involuntarily.
First Microsoft has a lot of explaining to do as why anyone should license the FAT file system.
TomTom didn't write the code, they licensed it from, well not sure. They are following the gpl, and that is the end of the story. Microsoft needs to be talk to the licensor, not suing one of their own customers, besides.
Microsoft didn't learn squat from their puppet SCO.
This isn't the strategy of a company in it for the long haul.
TomTom should be able to license FAT without violating the GPL. And if that is the case ... TomTom needs some serious explaining to do as to why they aren't licensing FAT. That said, Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms."
Ohh yes they will violate the GPL. I have lifted the comment below (in bold), from this informed user who I trust on these issues. He also drives home the motivation behind Microsoft's actions. Take a read.
Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison pointed out in a recent blog posting by writer Glyn Moody that companies who sign up to Microsoft's licensing cannot continue to distribute their code under GPLv2.
Section seven of GPLv2 - called the "Liberty or Death" clause - states that you cannot distribute code if outside restrictions have been imposed.
"What people are missing about this is the either/or choice that Microsoft is giving TomTom," Alison posted.
"It isn't a case of cross-license and everything is ok. If TomTom or any other company cross licenses patents then by section 7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel). they lose the rights to redistribute the kernel at all."
In other words, Microsoft is eroding Linux and open source and slowing their development. A deal with Microsoft prevents GPL'd code from returning to the ecosystem whence it came, with any improvements or updates, as companies that do patent licensing deals with Microsoft must keep it in-house.
Maybe they won't, but I wonder if TomTom can really take the risk of being sued later for willful infringement?
Considering how long copyrights last nowadays, the kernel developers easily have 70+ years to discover the infringement and pursue them.
They might like to seek out the kernel developers of the code involved in the relevant modules and license their work under more permissive terms for use in TomTom's products...
TomTom (probably) can't pay Microsoft for a license to the FAT patents without violating the GPL. The people who wrote the code that is (probably) covered by Microsoft's patent would then have the right to sue TomTom (for violating the GPL).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Setting aside the idiocy in assuming that the patents are valid after being rejected twice by the USPTO before finally being revalidated and ...
GPL V2 Terms and Conditions
11. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.
Microsoft does have the presidence in their favor due to the final decision of the USPTO and forcing Lexar to pay them off for their lame patents, but only a fool would simply give in to extortion.
Hehehe.. anyone who wrote ANY code in that device and put it under the GPL can sue Tom Tom for placing extra restrictions on the redistribution of the software.. as the license specifically states that extra restrictions are not allowed.
How we know is more important than what we know.
All the Microsoft "FAT patents" still in force have to do with the horrible hack used to support both long and DOS-type "short" ("XXXXXXXX.XXX") filenames. Nobody uses "short" filenames any more, and under UNIX/Linux, there's not even an API to talk about short filenames. So make an implementation that's long-filename only. You give up backwards compatability with DOS and Windows 3.1. Big deal.
They would be heroes, of sorts.
Okay but can microsoft sue the vendor of every linux laptop which supports vfat?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Seriously. How much of what exists in FAT existed previously in things like CP/M? The long filenames translation thing? That may take some serious digging, but perhaps it could be ruled as "too obvious" since both the need and the backward compatible solutions are somewhat obvious in that it couldn't likely have been done any other way. (Yes, I am talking out of my ass a bit here.)
But seriously, what happened to the fight by invalidating patents?
Question : Don't you have to show that you've been harmed in order to bring a lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought that in order to sue somebody, you had to be damaged by them.
Now, let's say Tom Tom or any other company ponies up to Microsoft and distributes some piece of hardware bundled with Linux, and that's obviously a violation of the GPL. Clearly Tom Tom broke the license and they are not entitled to distribute it.
The question is, is the GPL owner harmed?
Well, one could make the argument that the answer is no, as everyone who actually had a Tom Tom device could in fact obtain the GPL code for themselves, and could update the code in the device. In fact, a person owning a Tom Tom might perhaps just state that a replacement in deed, because, if the Tom Tom GPL code is the same as the code it would be replaced with, which it has to be, then a physical act of copying the code over to make it legal is silly.
What this could be then, would be really Microsoft trolling for the ultimate legal showdown, which is thus: Microsoft makes a bunch of noise but ultimately gives Tom Tom a vfat license, rendering Tom Tom in default of the GPL. Somebody sues Tom Tom, at which point, Microsoft's pocketbooks open up and they support Tom Tom in the lawsuit, arguing that, well, because any person who is distributed the GPL by Tom Tom, can get it from somewhere else, Tom Tom's infringement is actually academic.
Thus, the attack would be, you can't be damaged by someone redistributing your GPL code against the terms of the license, because the person they are distributing it to can get it directly from you, and the GPL is actually worthless.
This is my sig.
I say challenge them in court and put this nonsense down once and for all. There is tones of prior art. The vfat code was written before the patent was filed. They should just challenge Microsoft in court. I mean really. Whats wrong with challenging them. I'd say this is the safest bet at this point.
Is the thought that a lot of these companies that are using GPL code might actually be complicit in this plan. Poor Richard Stallman... he thought up the GPL after Emacs was swiped from him. Now, a bunch of companies are signing on with the likes of Microsoft not even over the matter of patents, but, over a more coordinated strategy to essentially just take the GPL code for their own products by turning the GPL into another kind of public domain.
This is my sig.
You're correct Bruce, I'm off base this time. I got contacted by the writer this morning who told me that the SFLC had told him that a fixed cap would work with GPLv2. So being in the middle of coding something (ie. not paying enough attention), and remembering the fixed price we paid to get access to the EU Workgroup Server docs, I just agreed that it sounded like this would be a work-around for v2, but not for v3 where section 11 is much stricter about patent licensing (explicitly the bits about extending the license downstream), and bingo - there goes the story with the quote. You know how these things go :-(. My fault, and I'll be more careful in future.
Looking closely at the license here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060207034921/http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
the devil is in the details. Someone just mailed me a comprehensive analysis and agreeing to this license, even with a royalty cap, would violate GPLv2 in several ways.
There is a field of use restriction : "Pricing for other device types can be negotiated with Microsoft."
Modification restrictions: "devices are fully compliant with certain required portions of the Microsoft FAT file system specification"
and a per-manufacturer limit: "a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per manufacturer".
So yes, I got it wrong and this license is in no way GPLv2 compatible.
Sorry for the mistake. Blame me, not the journalist who was just trying to get his story.
Jeremy.
Way back when the whole thing about fat being patented hit slashdot there were a few articles. One in particular was about nearly every camera manufacturer ponying up the dollars after the patent was uphelp... they all paid $250k to use fat (so no, this isnt new - and this was all on slashdot by the way).
Also, people keep missing the point of the patent (i.e. whats being licensed) keep an eye on whats being licensed here, its important. This is not "oh your flash card has a fat filesystem on it, you have to pay for it". Its "your device can read and write fat"... NOT THE STORAGE CARD! its the DEVICE that can read and write FAT (specifically long-file names capable FAT). Do we get what the license is for now?
Now what filesystem exactly would they switch to? joe blogs goes and downloads the update, plugs his flash card into his windows box and (formats the flash card if required - as fat or ntfs). Then plugs that into the tomtom device. Tomtom device doesnt read fat(32) and so it doesnt work...
i.e. tom tom are essentially forced to license a patent based the fact they are forced to implement fat in their device.
I personally hope tomtom fight it. from the words of (whats is possibly) the worlds most moronic OP "TomTom needs some serious explaining to do as to why they aren't licensing FAT.". You dont think Tom-tom already knew about it? you dont think they ever read the (very very public) news about it happening to the camera makers?
But in reality, it should read more like "the patent office have some serious explaining to do in order to justify why FAT was ever allowed to be patented". Those patents should never have been allowed - there is nothing remotely inventive about fat with long file names.
GPL developers suing TomTom over their copyrights would not get the chance to invalidate the patents. Their suit would be a copyright case. It's TomTom who can invalidate the patents if they decide to fight Microsoft that way. It's not even clear that they have to take the trouble, they could show that the vfat code has been in the kernel long enough for the Doctrine of Laches - which says you lose the right to assert your patent if you wait for the market to develop first - to apply.
Bruce Perens.
"placing restrictions" would mean written license terms beyond those in the GPL. It's a different section of the license from the part about patent rights. I don't see that it would apply in this case.
Bruce Perens.
Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms.
Just what we need... Microsoft offering legal opinions about GPL enforcement.
Thank you, Jeremy. I suspect you may be a bit out on a limb on the GPL compliance angle, too. As you can see above, there are only a few people who are direct copyright holders of the code that exercises the patent. The rest of the kernel isn't at issue. I think those four may be the only people with standing to sue. The question then is: does suing deter Microsoft, or only deter TomTom from embedding Linux in their device?
Obviously how TomTom conducts itself will be important. If their CEO has an on-stage hug with an MS executive and actively helps Microsoft circumvent the GPL, that would probably irk some developers. If they get bought by MS, they'd probably start embedding WinCE. If they just try to go on doing business as well as they can without allowing themselves to be a mouthpiece for a Microsoft FUD initiative, the key copyright holders might not have a reason to object. I would feel better about TomTom, though, if they hadn't had to be dragged into GPL compliance. But my experience is that companies usually commit GPL incompliance out of ignorance and bad process rather than intent.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Certainly MS could sue anyone who they claim violated their patent and didn't buy a license. It has nothing special to do with laptops or Linux.
The question is whether they would succeed.
Nobody got the sarcasm. The "informed user" is Rob Enderle, who is, according to his own web site, paid to take opinions by certain software vendors. Or he just psychotic. The point he is trying to make about holding back code doesn't make legal sense, because that's not in GPL compliance either.
Bruce Perens.
If I pirate a copy of Windows, ignoring the EULA and reverse engineering it to my heart's content, is Microsoft actually harmed?
I wasn't planning on buying a copy, so there's no monetary damages. Thus, you can't be damaged by someone pirating your software, and software licenses are actually worthless.
This is sarcasm, obviously. Microsoft and the GPL both rely on a sense of common decency, without it, they die.
Worse than that, they would be playing right into Microsoft's hands, scaring device developers away from Linux towards WinCE.
Consider MS describing the linux implementation as non-infringing - as it is distributed source-only (in the general case) for "research purposes".
No significant market infringing patents then?
Does Redhat pay a license fee for RHEL, or does it leave lfn support out altogether?
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
I've only got Debian around here so I can't check Red Hat. But I suspect that, on the advice of counsel, they ship the vfat code.
Bruce Perens.
How... odd. Enderle is always good for a chuckle. Like this paragraph:
Heh. Enderle. All concerned for FOSS. A big believer in the honesty of FOSS developers. That's rich.
Is someone connected high up with VLC, GIMP or even Mozilla that can start piggy-backing the ext2fs driver installer (with the users permission of course) on installation of such programs? Heck it would go a long way to fixing such problems.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Why would someone develop for WinCE? Not to troll, it just seems like a dead platform.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I honestly think that this is a retarded way of doing this. Dont MP3 players, cameras, and many more items use Vfat? They justed did this cause they know that now everyone is using the FAT32 system and since they see that they use there patent attack. Microsoft is a great company at times but shady business.
I would suggest the Doctrine of Laches could only consider binaries being shipped by a major distributor - source code usually being recognised as a non-infringing description of the patent. Taking this into account TomTom is probably one of the few people distributing an implementation without a license commercially.
Not sure if a court would consider this as submarining anyway - MS have fairly aggressively defended this patent in the past (especially against preformatted flash drive and camera/phone vendors).
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Didn't they patent Augmented Reality based gps navigation recently? They seem to have aninterest being a patent troll, so even Microsoft may be on the wrong side, TomTom has deserved getting fingers burnt anyway.
I don't care for their opinions. It would be nice if MS could, for once, stick to the facts.
But hey, that's like asking the NSA not to snoop..
Insert
What about where you'd just be downloading update's and sticking it on the memory card, say, on a computer that isn't yours to be able to be installing system level drivers on? Maybe a work machine, a friends laptop who isn't comfortable with having extra bits of software installed on the system their livelyhood depends on, or, a machine that's used to run something that the new driver code crashes? (The latter one is the reason I've had to uninstall ext2 driver support on my windows machine).
What if someone has a large memory card that they want to use for their tomtom updates, but also wants to backup their phone's addressbook 'n messages onto? Then their phone has to support the same FS too.
What if someone's out and they wanna take some photos, and for one reason or another, the one memory stick with space available on it they have to hand is the tomtom one... their camera would also now have to support the same filesystem.
These may seem far fetched to you, but they are possibilities that become unpossibilities one you start switching devices to non-ubiquitous filesystem. So, here's the bigger question: why close those doors?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
AFAIK, the original idea of patents was to give an inventor (read: the actual people who come up with an idea) a TEMPORARY market monopoly so that they could benefit from their invention without all & sundry copying it.
So far, so good. However, note "temporary" - the concept there was that eventually the idea would contribute to the common good. That, however, happens rarely.
Combine that with a questionable approach (I'm putting this mildly) to approving patents with plenty of prior art of falling well outside the boundary of what can be patented and you have an innovation stifling mess that only lawyers derive any benefit of - and very rich companies that can afford those lawyers.
I'm all for paying of what is due. I'm against a system that can be abused to stop competitive innovation or take an invention without paying.
Insert
I see another problem with this and that is that it shoots a hole in the GPS licensing.
What good is open source if you still have to pay royalties to patent trolls in order to use it?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Great exhibit for why allowing the patenting of software was a bad idea. Even you experts are guessing and rethinking how these hypothetical lawsuits would play out. If such complexity was necessary, it'd be one thing, but it's not.
Working out the issues in court could cost enough to make $250K look petty. Society will bear these costs. Generous of people to already be offering to help out with donations, but I wish it wasn't necessary. Ideally, MS should have no case whatsoever, and shouldn't even be thinking of such things. But patent law has handed them an angle. Remove patenting of software, and then the issues of this particular case will be non-issues.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
By "These folks" he meant the authors of vfat (of linux). Not some random M$ developers.
"Those are the listed authors of the vfat code in the Linux kernel."
Read notes slower.
Well WinCE supports FAT. Although I think you could just as easily license FAT on a closed embedded OS like QNX.
You could also use FreeBSD where there is no license to get in the way of licensing FAT.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I see another problem with this and that is that it shoots a hole in the GPS licensing. What good is open source if you still have to pay royalties to patent trolls in order to use it?
What do patent trolls have to do with anything? Let's say you are young enough to still go to school, and there is a school bully who threatens to beat up anyone who uses a computer that doesn't run Windows. So what good is GPL licensing? (I assume you meant GPL and not GPS). What good is a license to MacOS X, when Apple can't protect you from getting beaten up?
This whole GPL angle on the TomTom case is nonsense. TomTom uses Linux under the GPL license. Linux is either infringing on Microsoft's patent, or it isn't. If it is, that is not TomTom's fault. So TomTom gets blackmailed. They either pay or they don't. Whether they pay or they don't doesn't affect whether Linux is infringing on Microsoft's patent or not. Payment doesn't mean that TomTom admits Microsoft's patents are valid, it means they want to avoid a court case. Even if TomTom admits Microsoft's patents are valid, that isn't binding on anyone.
As long as TomTom puts all the code on their website, and doesn't itself add restrictions to its use, I can't see how they would be violating the GPL. Sure, they can tell you about this bully boy who forced them to pay money, and the bully boy could go after you as well. But the patent infringement, if there is one, is there in all Linux versions.
MS need to explain why this FAT patent is useful and non-obvious to those skilled in the art.
E.g. how is the way this deals with collision of names in a reduced nameset different from the way a hashtable deals with a collision in a hash?
None.
So obvious to do.
THAT needs explaining.
Everything is compatible with FAT is closer but still incorrect.
How?
PATENTS ON FAT!
Anything using FAT that isn't paying blood money to MS is incompatible with FAT.
Why is the GPL involved at all ? As far as I can tell, there is no source code available for TomTom devices anywhere, so how can they be using GPL'd software if the user has no access.
Why the hell would TomTom have explaining to do if they didn't pay MS license fees on a SOFTWARE patent? Sorry but IMHO NOBODY should pay fees for software patents, just give them the respect they deserve and ignore them outright.
Never mind, it was a "beware of the leopard" ordeal. http://www.tomtom.com/page.php?Page=gpl
Tomtom is a European country, and software is not patentable in the EU.
The FAT patent will not work in Europe. Tomtom may not be able to sell in the US though if there is a patent case there. However, I would expect the EU to ban MS in retaliation if this gets to a trade war.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I wish the EU would listen to that, they seem intend on pushing through software patents, which are proving to be a disaster in the US
I'm starting to wonder if this isn't in some way connected to Apple's counter-intuitive decision to block TomTom from selling their software for the iPhone.
TomTom announced fairly shortly after the 3G iPhone with built-in GPS appeared that they had a working port of their navigation software, but despite the obvious demand for the App, and the profits to be made from Apple's cut if it was on the App store, Apple have a very surprising clause in their development agreement that prohibits 'turn by turn navigation' apps.
If Apple are ready to bundle their own brand navigation software into iPhone OS 3.0 (rumoured to be announced next week), it might drive TomTom into the arms of Microsoft... however if TomTom are siding with Apple and the inevitable approved navigation software *is* that port of TomTom, then this whole kerfuffle might well be a warning shot over their bows by Microsoft.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Why don't Tom Tom just use BSD instead of Linux and then they can license the patents?
... on the basis of Anti trust?
IANAL, but it seems to me that by agressively patenting the most common file system on the planet and limiting the use of this file system, Microsoft is essentially using its monopoly on the Windows platform to gain an unfair advantage in the sat.nav market.
I'm surprised Tom Tom hasn't started an anti-trust counter suit.
And I don't for a second believe that the FAT filesystem patents would stand up if faced with a decent lawyer in a court. All the patents are describing relatively simple engineering solutions that anyone could come up with when faced with the problems Microsoft created for themselves.
what is this "Laches" timeout and wasn't the FAT16 patent awarded just a couple of years ago ?
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
1) remove the offending licensed code from TomTom custom distribution
2) change the licensing terms of that GPL code to something else
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
sorry for replying to myself here, but I just wanted to add something after I clicked Preview+Submit:
STAY AWAY FROM RESTRICTIONS, THEY ONLY GET TIGHTER
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
I think those four may be the only people with standing to sue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the rest of the kernel devs also have standing (for the distribution of the rest of the kernel, not the vfat module specifically)? If the vfat module itself becomes 'encumbered' in TomToms opinion, wouldn't they technically be obliged to distribute it separately from the kernel, ie, the old proprietary driver issue; they can distribute one or the other but not both together?
It's certainly one of those more tricky areas, and as far as I know there hasn't been any specific enforcement, but IIRC I've heard arguments towards that end around the general issue of proprietary drivers distributed together with the kernel.
I didn't realize Tomtom was a country... no wonder they need to write navigation software :)
It isn't clear to me that adjusting the licensing of the code in question matters. When it is compiled into the kernel, the gpl license would have to be able to be applied to the code (the gpl doesn't apply to the code in general, but my understanding is that it does apply to the code as used in that instance, or at least, it is intended to apply...).
So they could solve the problem (ostensibly they want to continue to support Fat) by moving to entirely to some other embedded system, but just getting a broader license on the FAT support doesn't necessarily improve things.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Wow. FP from Bruce Perens!. I was eating some hot grits at the time and i darn went and spilled them into my lap!
Then if TomTom settles with MS and TomTom's EULA does not impose restrictions on the end user, this clause does not apply. Even if it did what would it say ... must use windows when plugging the device to a PC! would not stand in court I assume
There is something bizarre about this clause and it's interpretation, in that TomTom does not own the rights to the Linux's vfat code, so how can they impose restrictions on it. Can I then impose restrictions on say ext3, just for fun?
How is this different from :
Redhat restricting the number of cpus if you buy RHEL.
Tivo restricting how (in fact if) you can use their device
Wireless device drivers including intel that impose restrictions on frequency the device can operate (by using blobs)
Who's talking about the vfat driver?
When it's compiled into the kernel or linked with other code, you have to take the whole system into account. If you distribute GPL binaries you must be able to distribute source, and those you distribute it to must be able to do the same with no more restrictions than the GPL provides.
Any license deal gets in the way of this.
Linux distributions that support vFAT are on the market for several years now, and they certainly contain binaries too. Compiling your own kernel is optional and done after installation of the pre-compiled version. Except maybe Gentoo...
So while I don't know the legal details of laches (what is a typical timeframe for it to apply?), in principle this looks like a case where it fits.
C - the footgun of programming languages
...as to why they don't pay royalties. Because they shouldn't. Fuck software patents.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Now here is a perfect example of a way for Adobe to strike back at silverlight. Will they
do this, nope I don't expect them to be smart enough to take advantage of the situation. Adobe
should quickly deploy a file system driver and perhaps picture viewer or something to that effect
and bundle it with flash player. Practically overnight it would be distributed to nearly every
computer in the world, goodbye FAT. It does not have to even integrate with flash but use the
distribution mechanism to beat them at their own game.
Got Code?
Does this really have anything to do with GPL code for for reading vfat, or the fact that the device have storage formatted as FAT? It seems I recall Microsoft threatening to sue everybody who shipped products formatted with FAT (SD cards etc). Most of these devices have no software at all, just a formatted file system.
IANAL, but to me I don't see where paying MS would violate the GPL at all.
The gist of the GPL is about distribution, modifications and source availability. I searched for Open Office the other day, and the first link was something like software-openoffice.com. Out of morbid curiosity, I clicked on it and they wanted me to pay like $30-60/year subscription to download OO. For all I know, this is a patented business method or software design or something. Now, OO is LGPL, not GPL, but I've heard here on /. that in Europe these kind of pay sites for GPL stuff are around and they are legal.
To me, the real crime is that 14+ year old technology has the potential to even under a patent.
The GPL is a restriction.
If TomTom just licenses the patents and does not attempt to tell anyone what they can and can not redistribute in a way that is contradictory to the GPL, I am not clear that all kernel developers would have standing. TomTom could inadvertently give standing to others by doing something stupid like adding written terms that are in conflict with the GPL.
Bruce Perens.
Keep reading below and someone actually knows what they are talking about :)
I don't think there's anything magic about source code that would disable the Doctrine of Laches. There is ample evidence that the source code has been compiled and used in a commercial context for more than a decade. Microsoft has not asserted its rights against the producers of namei_vfat.c despite the fact that it has been clearly visible to Microsoft for a long time. I think that's all you need to build a Laches case.
Bruce Perens.
6 years is the commonly accepted interval. But Laches cases have been won for as little as 1 year.
Bruce Perens.
They can, as long as the terms permit redistribution. The GPL just requires that the person receiving the code is able to redistribute it. If Tom-Tom pay a license fee for the patents that allows anyone to redistribute it then this is fine. Of course, this means that anyone who receives the code from Tom-Tom gets the patent license, as does anyone they distribute it to, and so on, which means that, effectively, Tom-Tom gets to pay the royalty for everyone who distributes the Linux kernel. With a capped royalty, this isn't too much of a problem, because they can pay up to the limit and not worry about anyone else distributing the code. Of course, this buts Tom-Tom at a commercial disadvantage, because they are paying for their competitors to distribute FAT, which is probably exactly what Microsoft wants.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
But that was my cure for obesity!
Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
And GPLv3 is proof of his point.
The GPL restricts developers and distributors, not end users. GPLv3 adds additional restrictions.
If a business was built around exploiting "loopholes" in the GPLv2 and then the project they were relying on as a whole moves to GPLv3, then the business may have lost access to further updates.
So, even the GPL is not exempt from creating tighter restrictions. Just because some people happen to like the restrictions doesn't mean they aren't beyond those originally applied.
Dead? How many devices out there sport Windows Mobile? Windows Mobile is just a tailored build of Windows CE.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
You shouldn't use the word FAT as it may be offensive to some individuals. You should instead use the more polite overweight. M$ is teh suxx0rz. FAT is teh suxx0rz. GPL is teh 1337
Why would someone develop for WinCE? Not to troll, it just seems like a dead platform.
No GPL restrictions?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
My dumb layman interpretation is that Microsoft is willing to grant a device specific license and that license is not compatible with the gpl (which would seem to require that people who receive the code can do whatever they want with it, not simply be able to use the code on the device that included the binary).
The cap is a red herring, as TomTom paying a royalty on their gps doesn't have anything to do with the royalties that might be due for using the code on some other device.
(This is all setting aside the fact that the patent is questionable; at the very least, it is obvious enough that a patent system that treats it as legitimate needs reform (a shorter term might still make sense))
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Perhaps. Its arguable that there is no way (slash incredibly difficult) to identify individuals who compiled and used the vfat for commercial, rather than research purposes.
That would leave this particular assault looking for major distributions who have distributed binaries - and for them to show that there would be significant harm in the patent being enforced (and I could find many many examples of people arguing how ext* is superior).
I haven't read thru the source, but I was under the impression that most of this was covered in a similar way to the sub-pixed rendering (ClearType) patents. The end user will physically have to compile / enable the infringing feature. (In the case of ClearType, this was uncommenting some code under a line warning of the patent issues).
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
So would it be possible to have the custom file system (or ext2 or whatever) and then have the drivers for that fs embedded on some rom chip or non-volatile memory. When the user connects the USB to the device, then the device would automagically download and install its own drivers to windows? Does storage on NVRAM or roms pre-suppose FAT? I know windows can read at least one non-MS filesystem (the CD ISO9660 format). I wonder this about printers to, why do I need a CD? Why can the device install its own drivers when I plug it in?
WinCE 5 was a pile of crap, but WinCE 6 is actually quite good. It's small, customizable, fast, and pretty easy to develop for.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Developers, being copyright owners, would sue TomTom for copyright violation. Copyright law being well established (GPL being a rather new twist, however), TomTom would probably attempt to meet the demands of the copyright owners instead of risking the loss of the code, which means following the terms of the GPL. That would force TomTom into compliance, whichever way they choose to go, and the most obvious choice is to fight back against Microsoft. As you say, Laches would be a lot easier path than defending against the copyright owners.
Several assumptions going on here, but they are as valid as the assumption that the copyright owners wouldn't want to sue. Keep in mind I have little idea what I'm talking about, just questioning assumptions and offering alternatives. And I'd love for someone to just stand up, point at Microsoft, and say "STFU" within my lifetime.
In general I would agree, but MS has been wielding this fairly heavily lately, and I wouldn't be surprised for someone to decide it's time call their bluff. This seems to be the perfect setup.
Wait a minute. Now wait just a minute. I must've missed something. When was Microsoft granted FAT patent? I can't believe it was. But if it somehow was, how, and more importantly where?
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such things, and they have made repeated statements that they aren't sure such things are patentable.
deploy a file system driver ... and bundle it with flash player ... It does not have to even integrate with flash but use the distribution mechanism to beat them at their own game
Bingo. If the FAT-LFN FS (FAT filesystem with long filename support) patents can't be invalidated, and aren't going to expire anytime soon, then I believe this idea will be the only permanent solution for the problem.
Right now every company that distributes a "plug-ready" storage device that comes formatted with a FAT-LFN FS on it has to pay an expensive MS tax, or risk getting sued. If a company that pays the ransom *also* puts Linux on the device to read & write this format, then technically they could be sued by the authors of that code (assuming they wanted to), *if* those authors knew who these companies were. We already know, from MS itself, that they have made such deals, under NDA, with companies, which allows those companies to remain anonymous.
Introducing a new FS "standard" (for small devices) into the world of Windows, free of MS patents, and as ubiquitous as, say, the Adobe Flash Player is, would be a permanent way of ending the MS tax.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure Adobe, specifically, would interested in trying, as AFAIK, they are primarily a software company, and don't make the kind of hardware devices we are talking about. What would be necessary, I think, is a consortium of hardware makers getting together, adopting an existing filesystem, making a Windows driver for it that is robust, stable, and ready for the typical Windows end-users out there, and then distributing the hell out of it. If they do the heavy lifting, *then* maybe they can get companies like Adobe, ones who are already doing mass distribution of commonly used Windows drivers & utilities, to help spread the new "standard", and *anyone* who has a device that needs this, could just slap this thing on their hardware's driver CD, with a label saying, in effect, "you must run the install CD first before using the device". Now that MS is targeting Adobe's own home-base with Silverlight, Adobe is not likely to be all that friendly towards MS anymore, and *probably* wouldn't mind helping out, as well as other major players, especially if it didn't require a lot of work on their part (just including it with whatever they're distributing now).
Would they (the hardware makers) be interested? I don't know, apparently most of them believe its just easier to pay the MS tax. So it might take a little help from some in the FOSS community to kickstart the idea, by taking an existing open filesystem that's free of patents, and doing some (or a lot) of the software engineering to make such a fast, free, stable, easy-to-use filesystem driver (and an installer for it) possible. As some have mentioned earlier however, the available ext2 driver on Windows is apparently not very stable (and do we *know* if its patent free?), so there doesn't appear to be a ready option already available, and none of the hardware makers that are now under MS's thumb, show any desire to try and fight back.
It might be a nice idea, or not, but the cynic in me thinks the most likely result will be that companies just continue to pay the MS tax (and those who also distribute Linux will do so anonymously, and just keep their heads down), until those FAT-LFN FS patents expire. The only question is, for how long?
You might be right. But I have seen this too many times before...
"Windows $PRODUCTNAME ($CURRENT_VERSION-1) is a pile of crap, but Windows $PRODUCTNAME $CURRENT_VERSION is actually quite good. Many of the things we have been pretending are not broken have now been fixed!"
A sick person could probably have fun with a greasemonkey script that looks for the word "Windows" or Win%% and make the appropriate string substitutions.
So, what if TomTom chose to rewrite namei_vfat.c, which isn't very long or complicated, and take those copyright holders out of the picture? They could GPL the result, but the only party with standing to sue them over the FAT patent might then be themselves.
Bruce Perens.
The problem is that the GPL ensures that their users can redistribute and use that code without any restrictions. That means they have to actually buy that patent for every Linux user.
No matter if they rewrite that or not, in the end one of three things might happen:
1. They violate someones GPL by not allow redistribution.
2. Microsofts grants them a GPL compatible license which effectively means their FAT patents are voided.
3. They settle with Microsoft for some payment and stop either using FAT or a GPL kernel.
Thus, the attack would be, you can't be damaged by someone redistributing your GPL code against the terms of the license, because the person they are distributing it to can get it directly from you, and the GPL is actually worthless.
I could refuse to give them a copy. Bradley M. Kuhn has used this as an example is one of his talks (see whatever audio-video.gnu.org redirects to).
My refusal doesn't mean you can't give them a copy, but you have to do so compliant with the terms of the GPL---or, if it's multi-licensed, at least one license (that's my interpretation of multi-licensing, and IANAL).
You argument is interesting and wrong ;-)
From Teh OP:
And... um... why do they need to explain it?
Last time I checked, it wasn't MS's job to give people GPL advice.
I thought that Microsoft has a ongoing patent-licensing agreement with Novell which distributes GPLv3 software. But the GPLv3 says that therefore a world-wide royalty-free patent-license is granted. However the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2. So does anybody know a software which
* is licensed under GPLv3
* distributed by Novell
* and contains FAT
I guess that could change the game quite a bit.
I don't think I'm wrong on the GPL compliance issue. Even if there are few people with standing to sue (which I'm not convinced of), such a license from Microsoft would still violate the GPLv2 and put whoever agreed to that license into copyright violation. Now they might not get sued over it, but reputable companies don't knowingly do things like this.
Jeremy.
I could refuse to give them a copy.
Yeah, but you can't, as a practical matter, actually do that. You can't refuse a person from downloading your code on sourceforge. You can't issue a stop order out to whatever mirrors have your code. You have no way of knowing what each person is that is getting the various GPL software. There's no way for you to actually make that refusal!
This is my sig.
Well, except the code released doesn't get more restricted. There are only changes on future code, which is different.
All this will do is steer more businesses away from GPL licensed code towards a BSD or similar licensed code. I never got why a business would choose GPL code over BSD licensed code. They can modify and distribute all they want and only release their code changes if they choose to.
Well or you could see it a different way - the GPL is slowing Linux development. Congrats to the fanatics!
Excuse my ignorance, but what's the big deal with FAT? There are so many other file-systems available, what advantages does FAT have? Why does it still live on?
Because Linux is further along with the embedded support because a few key vendors fixed it up a while ago. Also there are no companies like MontaVista selling BSD based embedded distros.
A few companies have a large in-house staff to maintain their own custom version of BSD (I believe Juniper Networks uses a heavily modified FreeBSD (called JunOS) on most of their routers and appliances).
From a license stand point, using BSD seems far less complicated than GPL for a business, so I'm also surprised it's not a more popular solution. I have dealt with reviewing open source packages with legal departments to wrangle all the GPL linking issues several times before, and I found it to be a fairly tedious process. But I have also dealt with licensing and contracts for closed source products and sometimes those can be a nightmare as well. You wait many weeks for lawyers, sales reps and executives to duke it out over price before you can see any code at all. Developers end up losing time because they can't even start until they have some code in their hot little hands. Often there is trouble answering basic architectural decisions until the closed source packages can be taken for a test run. This causes further delays.
In comparison to some commercial software licesing, GPL is very easy, as long as you are willing to isolate your proprietary bits and share the rest of your system with the world.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And MSFT gets royalties from all of them?
4. They settle with MS, and modify their kernel to only use the 8.3 filenames and avoid the patent.
Which is more likely than any other outcome.
The gist of the GPL is about distribution, modifications and source availability. I searched for Open Office the other day, and the first link was something like software-openoffice.com. Out of morbid curiosity, I clicked on it and they wanted me to pay like $30-60/year subscription to download OO. For all I know, this is a patented business method or software design or something. Now, OO is LGPL, not GPL, but I've heard here on /. that in Europe these kind of pay sites for GPL stuff are around and they are legal.
Oh, it's even funnier than that in Russia. There, you get government agencies, such as police - not even BSA-type guys! - raiding offices to check for "illegal software". This is because in Russia, software piracy is a criminal matter, not civil - i.e. the state itself can and will sue you, even if the copyright holder does not want it to happen (this is what happened in Ponosov case, where MS itself said they have no problems, but the government went ahead with the prosecution).
Now, aside from all the obvious problems with that, there's also the issue that the people doing those inspections understand very little about the business. They often have a simple script, which basically tells them to require the business owner to present either software boxes or some other printed document with a holographic "licensed blah-blah-blah" sticker. They do not know about FLOSS in general or Linux and OpenOffice in particular, so if you have a PC that can boot, and it doesn't have a licensed Windows sticker, you're in trouble. You may of course fight that in the courts and will probably win - the problem is that those inspectors have the right to confiscate the PCs they deem "unlicensed" on the spot, and hold them in custody until the court rules in your favor. Given that it may easily take several months to a year, it's a very major detriment for any business to stay out of most, if not all, of their computers for so long.
So an alternative solution was found: some software distributors sell fancy-looking papers as "licenses" for FLOSS software. For example, here you can buy such a license for OpenOffice for ~$20. What it is is just a printout of a Russian translation of the GPL on fancy paper with a holographic sticker, and a title page that says "License granted to company X", so that you can shove it in the face of any inspector that comes to check. They say it works. $20 isn't exactly a small amount, though...
You seem pretty knowledgeable here so I have to ask, does the patent actual cover the ability to use the file system or just the file system? It seems wrong to block someone from using a butter knife as a screw driver because the screw has a patent on it.
I'm not entirely sure that the GPL needs to be involved here at all. The device that the TomTom software is distributed on needs a patent license because of it's file system configuration. However, I don't think the code that allows access (the file system driver) would need a license to be redistributed. It certainly isn't needed now for a distro or kernel. It seems that it is only needed when the actual file system itself is in play and distributed.
Because of that, and let me know if I'm wrong, the GPL shouldn't even matter on this. The GPL pertains to the software, not the hardware. If I purchased a Linux server in a turn key application, I wouldn't be expecting distribution rights to patents in the Bios, patents on the CPU, video card, or any other device. I wouldn't even expect the GPL to apply to the LBA code in the harddrive even though it controls it.
Fat works on anything just about. It's part open and a standard that just about any device and operating system can use. This makes it great for flash memory and stuff like that where the intent is to transfer information between two machines. If you used Xfile system, it's possible that older versions of the current operating system or many others wouldn't be able to use it. With fat, you at least know all MS versions can and most likely everything else too.
An alternative to this is to use a proprietary OS and a Fire wire or network head for file transfer but then your losing on speed and increasing costs while at the same time adding layers of complexity that wouldn't otherwise need to be there like proprietary software for the different versions of the operating systems, network configuration and the possability of no port on the devices.
Thanks for an excellent answer!
And I still call the FAT patent a troll patent.
Almost every software patent is troll patents one way or another because they just causes trouble for software development.
As it is now one company can claim a software patent and claim thousands of man-hours for it while another can do the same development in an afternoon with the right guy.
And if you have a patent attack on Linux it's subsequently also attacking GPL.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
they're grrrrrreat!
No... you were onto something there, but you blew it, you fuckwit! You should have said "Frosties Post".
Not to mention the devices that actually run straight Windows CE. My GPS navigator does as well as our AT&T IPTV boxes. Price checkers at Meijer (and probably elsewhere) run CE. So does the Zune.
Seriously, what made you think CE was dead?
Well, sort of. If the Vfat driver is the only thing that's GPLed and in violation and TomTom decides to implement their own driver, they can GPL it too. The Kernel will be under GPLv2 and if they do this, plus license the fat32 Patent from Microsoft for their use only, the only people that could sue TomTom over GPL violations would be TomTom themselves. It doesn't matter how many GPLed pieces of software are on the device, only the ones specifically in violation can have standing.
Only the copyright holders can sue for GPL violations and only those holders who control the part of the code in fault to be more specific. So if TomTom rewrote the fat32 driver and got a license, then they are the only ones who can sue over a violation. Nothing else, in the kernel or otherwise would have any claim to a GPL violation over the implementation of a fat driver. Further more, they could distribute both separately and have a run time compile script at the initial start up of the device that would add the existing fat driver to GPLv3 code as an end user and get by the GPLv3 restrictions.
You can litterally have an entire GPLed OS with only one program or even just one part of a program in violation and the only people with standing to do anything about it would be just that one program's copyright holder. It's even questionable that if we both hold the copyright over Widget.c and the part of the code being violated is something I wrote, you might not even have a standing to sue the violator directly. You may be able to sue me for allowing it but then your looking at forcing me to make a good faith effort to ensure the GPL requirements on your code is honored which might not work.
I sort of see them as taking a different route though. I think TomTom will implement a network head and turn the USB connection into a host to host USB network device probably running something like RNDIS. This has the advantage of allowing the software to plug into a cell phone and grab updates from the internet directly. The underlying file system of any storage device simply wouldn't matter at that point because the network connection would transfer everything to the device and the device would do all the writing instead of the host computer seeing it as a drive.
Here's how TomTom can get off the GPL hook, no matter what terms they come to with Microsoft:
The engineering effort for this would be easy.
Fat works on anything just about. It's part open and a standard that just about any device and operating system can use.
ext2 is completely open and unencumbered by patents. ext2 works out of the box on any non-MSFT system. :)