Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Pledges Not To Sue Any Open Source Projects Using Their Patents

Posted by Unknown on from the now-and-forever dept.

sfcrazy writes "Google has announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge. In the pledge Google says that they will not sue any user, distributor, or developer of Open Source software on specified patents, unless first attacked. Under this pledge, Google is starting off with 10 patents relating to MapReduce, a computing model for processing large data sets first developed at Google. Google says that over time they intend to expand the set of Google's patents covered by the pledge to other technologies." This is in addition to the Open Invention Network, and their general work toward reforming the patent system. The patents covered in the OPN will be free to use in Free/Open Source software for the life of the patent, even if Google should transfer ownership to another party. Read the text of the pledge. It appears that interaction with non-copyleft licenses (MIT/BSD/Apache) is a bit weird: if you create a non-free fork it appears you are no longer covered under the pledge.

10 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. After Reader Debacle, Let's retry Don't Be Evil by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's clear what's going on here is that Google is once again trying to return to it's "Don't be Evil" roots -- even though its behavior is painting it less and less of the champion of the free internet, and more just-another-profit-centered-corporation. When you sue an open source software producer, you usually don't get much money or anything in return, so it's not a big deal monetarily. The gesture however gives them some PR points they've desperately been seeking lately, especially amongst the tech community they've alienated by cancelling Reader. Likely though, it's too little, too late.

    1. Re:After Reader Debacle, Let's retry Don't Be Evil by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes a special kind of entitled asshole, or MS/apple fanboy, to think google is evil for ending a service they were giving away for free.

      There are other free RSS services out there, or you can make your own server. It's trivial to export your feeds from google.

  2. A Bit Weird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " It appears that interaction with non-copyleft licenses (MIT/BSD/Apache) is a bit weird: if you create a non-free fork it appears you are no longer covered under the pledge."

    That's not weird. That's exactly how it should be.

    1. Re:A Bit Weird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ethically, that makes this pledge worthless for anything other than GPLed software.

      So, still pretty darn useful then? Who said Google wanted to make its patents available to proprietary software that links against open-source software? They're trying to help open-source software, not proprietary software built on top of open-source software (see: Apple).

  3. Re: Thus Google reveals their bias. by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or to translate from flamebait to English:
    They'll share with anyone else who shares. Same concept as the GPL, though admittedly in a somewhat more vague and less legally-binding manner.

  4. Re:Darwin and Motorola by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple sells proprietary crud layered on top of free software. They generally don't want you to be even aware of the free software. They just want you to fixate on the shiny shiny proprietary bits on the surface. The fact that they exploit the free labor of hobbyists doesn't alter the basic crass nature of their activities.

    Apple are not "F/OSS developers".

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. it is in enforceable in at least US, UK, Australia by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Promissory estoppel (you promised, so you have to stop) is enforceable at least in the US, AU, and UK. The consultations are a) a clear promise. ("We don't like to sue" is insufficient), b) reliance on the promise (we made this software knowing that Goog promised not to sue) and c) inequity (it would be unfair for Goog to sue when they promised not to).
    In some countries, it can only be used as a defense, to have a lawsuit dismissed. You can't sue someone to make them live up to a unilateral promise. They say it's "a shield, not a sword". In AU, it can be used as a sword - you could sue Gopgle to force them to live up to the promise, or for damages if they don't. That means that an Aussie user could sue Google for damages if Google threatened to enforce the patent against some software on which they rely.

    Aside from tbe legal terms, imagine you're on the jury. Google sues someone. The defendant points out that Google promised not to, essentially giving the defendant permission to use the patents. As a juror, how would YOU decide the case?

  6. A Pledge is Good by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Too bad they didn't pledge to keep all their little services running, google code, wave, catalogs, notebook... I wonder if it would have mattered.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  7. Re:Ah but can you not also make bridges out of sto by tibman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't that the same as saying that if you bought a patent you could void all current licensed copies in existence? Each of those licenses was a contract of sorts, right?

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  8. Re:Darwin and Motorola by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fact that they exploit the free labor of hobbyists doesn't alter the basic crass nature of their activities.

    Apple are not "F/OSS developers".

    Using this logic, Google, IBM and all the other companies like Redhat leech off of hobby devs and don't pay devs themselves, like Apple pays devs to work on webkit, among other things.

    Your post is modded insightful, but it's really a troll and devoid of actual fact.

    --
    BMO