Red Hat Fights Patent Troll With GPL

jfruh writes "Red Hat is in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Twin Peaks Software, which claims that a Red Hat subsidiary is abusing a Twin Peaks filesystem lawsuit. Now, Red Hat is launching an intriguing countermeasure: the company claims that Twin Peaks' own closed source software violates the GPL because it makes use of an open source disk utility that Red Hat holds the copyright on. Is this a smart move on Red Hat's part?"

Comments

s/filesystem lawsuit/filesystem patent/

[awkScooby]

It's a patent RedHat is accused of "abusing".

Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is brilliant! Just accuse them of a GPL violation and they'll be forced to prove their source code is different by revealing it.

It's a wonder nobody has done this before.

Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll?

[jedidiah]

Sure.

A troll is a parasite extracting payment for something that isn't really his.

Genius of the GPL revealed once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh all you want, but RMS keeps getting proved right over and over about Free Software.

Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll?

[ZombieBraintrust]

No, Troll is not a generic name for an evil company. A Troll is a company whose primary source of income is patent lawsuits. This company doesn't fit that discription. It has another source of income that can be sued. You can't fight a patent Troll with GPL because a patent Troll doesn't have a product that uses GPL. A true patent Troll is just a P.O. Box and a lawyer.

Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.[1]"

1 Alexander Poltorak. "On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief"., ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006

------

Sorry, you were saying something?

Re:Not a NPE, Is it a Troll?

[canajin56]

SCO wasn't a patent troll by any reasonable definition of the term. This is not because they had a product for sale, but because they didn't sue over patents.

Re:Prior Art?

[Michael Woodhams]

No, the GPL doesn't work like this. Having violated the GPL on this code, Twin Peaks are no longer licensed. They cannot reacquire a license simply by coming back into compliance. They need to explicitly be relicensed by the copyright holder (Red Hat), who are not likely to do so in this case.

It has been the norm for the resolution of GPL violations that the violator comes back into compliance and then is relicensed, because Free Software organizations are generally more interested in cooperation than conflict, but there is no legal requirement for Red Hat to follow this norm.

You can read the GPL here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html