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."

4 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.