Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TomTom Can License FAT Without Violating the GPL

Posted by timothy on from the ask-a-master-license-delver dept.

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."

11 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck em by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just switch file systems. Seriously, why the hell are you using FAT anyway.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Fuck em by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone uses it? you can plug in the SD card from the gps (or camera or whatever) straight into a card reader on _any_ computer from the last 10 years and it will read it. Moving away from it will be like moving from IPv4 to IPv6. Slow and messy. But necessary one day - those flash devices are getting bigger and bigger, and windows won't let you create a FAT fs bigger than 32G (though it is possible) as it gets horribly inefficient. MS is pushing exFAT, but being incompatible with FAT, they face the same problems as any other fs in this regard, and lawsuits like this one might end up biting them back.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
  2. tomTom has to explain nothing by NatteringNabob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. It's about interoperability, stupid by Jonner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:They actually can't, most likely by slashqwerty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    It goes further than "the software". For this to work all recipients of the software must have all the rights granted under the GPL, which means they must be able to modify and redistribute the code, even as a completely different product. If a recipient of the code wanted to use it in a blender that stores data in memory in FAT format, the recipient must have the right to do so royalty-free in order for the GPL to remain intact.

    Basically, the $250,000 cap would have to effectively grant unlimited use of the patent in all GPL'd software in order to distribute any software that uses the patent under the GPL. I seriously doubt Microsoft's licensing allows for that.

  5. Re:No lawsuit likely, here's how it actually works by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  6. Re:Why not? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:No lawsuit likely, here's how it actually works by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:No lawsuit likely, here's how it actually works by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Sadly, many including the poster don't get it.. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Sadly, many including the poster don't get it.. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How... odd. Enderle is always good for a chuckle. Like this paragraph:

    FOSS folks sold me, during the SCO days, that they were sincere in their claim that if they used code that belonged to someone else and it became a problem, they would simply stop using it. I saw zero risk to open source from Microsoft, but Iâ(TM)m seeing a lot of FUD coming out of the FOSS side, and now Iâ(TM)m getting concerned.

    Heh. Enderle. All concerned for FOSS. A big believer in the honesty of FOSS developers. That's rich.