Slashdot Mirror
Software Freedom Conservancy Shares Thoughts on Microsoft Joining Open Invention Network's Patent Non-Aggression Pact (sfconservancy.org)
Earlier this week, Microsoft announced that it was joining the open-source patent consortium Open Invention Network (OIN). The press release the two shared this week was short on details on how the two organizations intend to work together and what does the move mean to, for instance, the billions of dollars Microsoft earns each year from its Android patents (since Google is a member of OIN, too.) Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), a non-profit organization that promotes open-source software, has weighed in on the subject: While [this week's] announcement is a step forward, we call on Microsoft to make this just the beginning of their efforts to stop their patent aggression efforts against the software freedom community. The OIN patent non-aggression pact is governed by something called the Linux System Definition. This is the most important component of the OIN non-aggression pact, because it's often surprising what is not included in that Definition especially when compared with Microsoft's patent aggression activities. Most importantly, the non-aggression pact only applies to the upstream versions of software, including Linux itself.
We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on Linux products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact.
We now ask Microsoft, as a sign of good faith and to confirm its intention to end all patent aggression against Linux and its users, to now submit to upstream the exfat code themselves under GPLv2-or-later. This would provide two important protections to Linux users regarding exfat: (a) it would include any patents that read on exfat as part of OIN's non-aggression pact while Microsoft participates in OIN, and (b) it would provide the various benefits that GPLv2-or-later provides regarding patents, including an implied patent license and those protections provided by GPLv2 (and possibly other GPL protections and assurances as well).
We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on Linux products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact.
We now ask Microsoft, as a sign of good faith and to confirm its intention to end all patent aggression against Linux and its users, to now submit to upstream the exfat code themselves under GPLv2-or-later. This would provide two important protections to Linux users regarding exfat: (a) it would include any patents that read on exfat as part of OIN's non-aggression pact while Microsoft participates in OIN, and (b) it would provide the various benefits that GPLv2-or-later provides regarding patents, including an implied patent license and those protections provided by GPLv2 (and possibly other GPL protections and assurances as well).
only use FreeBSD going forward; Linux was compromised over 5 years ago by big corp
Microsoft would be better to release more code under MIT or BSD and smack the GPL right out of their crummy little hands. That would be awesome, a little haha, screw your GPL limitations. So stupid to say 'use this limiting license'. Screw them and their license.
PlanetVulkan.com
Step 2: Android
The fact that the exfiltrated exfat driver wasn't merged to the kernel is NOT an indication of whether patent troll protection is included for exFAT. One of the reasons the Samsung exfat driver hasn't been merged is that it's TERRIBLE. Another reason is that nobody worth anything in the kernel community is not going anywhere NEAR that driver with a ten-foot pole unless Microsoft states that exfat is explicitly included in the batch of patents covered by the OIN membership.
I'm the GOD of the COMMITTEES!!!
To me, to join OIN, one of the requirements should be for the company to abandon all suits related to items used in Linux or any Open/Free Software/products. If that is not a requirement, that indicates to me it just a 'bribe' for the company to get bragging rights.
Software patents simply need to be eliminated altogether. Possibly all patents, for that matter. They are almost exclusively a legal means of extortion and lifetime employment for bloodsucking patent lawyers.
One thing you can be sure of: Microsoft does nothing out of good will. Either there's an angle here, or it's an empty PR gesture that doesn't change anything significantly.
OIn is just taking microsoft money and will not now or ever expect them to live up to the terms and conditions of the OIN licence. This is also microsoft just trying to do an end run around the linux ecosystem and tax it and also try to look like it's just helping. In reality linux doesn't need help from the microsoft crowd, it's microsoft that is losing market share to linux.
Red Hat needs to die also does pottering and his ilk. j
It DOES cover thousands of packages. I don't know the exact number, but maybe 20,000 or so software projects are included.
I could write a few lines of code implementing virtually any patent in the world and open source it. Therefore, abandoning all patents implemented in ANY open source project is effectively equalivent to "abandon all patents". If that's what you mean, that's a simpler way to say it.
That's essentially the problem with GPLv3, by the way. It circuitously requires giving up patents in a way that isn't obvious on first reading. That's one reason many projects stick with GPLv2.
The list of covered projects can be found here:
https://www.openinventionnetwo...
It's essentially everything included in any major Linux release.
As far as I'm aware, Microsoft went after every android phone manufacturer for royalties except Google. Iwould be interested in seeing some citation that they're paying because that was a key reason the ms patent infringement claims are a sham.
It is obvious that ms sees joining the oin as a cheap way to access the patent pool within the oin while not having to give much back of their own. Even if ms gave way to free license to use exfat in linux it would benefit themselves more because they still get royalties from cameras makers, phone makers and basically any portable device that implements exfat. If linux doesn't support exfat and takes off that would be less reason for those device makers to use exfat and use whatever else the open source community have come up with as an alternative which some would probably adopt as well.
This is all about ms getting free access to ibm and Google's patents for their linux cloud business while getting linux to adopt more ms tech so they can collect more royalties from companies that make devices that interoperate with linux. When ms patents are deeply entrenched in linux who would trust borrowing code to use in other os like haiku, reactos and bsd for interoperability. Ms is trying to poison linux from within.
This issue has to do with patent law, not copyright law. So it's important to look at how Microsoft uses patent law to appear to be conciliatory while retaining considerable power. Microsoft has already demonstrated a preference for what Richard Stallman rightly calls "pushover" free software licenses—non-copyleft licenses such as the new BSD and MIT X11 license. Microsoft picks such licenses not for some inchoate disagreement with the GNU GPL as you stated but because those licenses don't stop Microsoft from doing more of what they did with their patent licence for .NET core. That license is so limited one can't do valuable things such as sharing code across projects and modifying code in ways we find useful to us without risking losing a patent infringement lawsuit from Microsoft.
In Microsoft's patent license for .NET core, "you're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime"". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.". The GNU GPL, by contrast, would have protected you from this, allowing you to use the covered code in another project and retain your software freedom.
As the article also points out, Microsoft's patent license only applies under very limited conditions, "the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you."
We don't know for sure if one would gain an implicit patent license with code distributed under the MIT X11 license but we do know one would get license to do as they need or want under the GNU GPLv3 because the text of the license says so:
The language of GPLv2 section 7 applies here as well.
So if you're looking to use your software freedom, pick a license that does the job of ensuring those rights will be there when you need them by spelling out those rights explicitly; right now that's the GNU GPLv2 or later. I suspect that it is this consideration for users, plus Brad Kuhn's keen knowledge of the GNU GPLs, and practical value in licensing compatibly with the Linux kernel that lead him to recommend licensing under GNU GPLv2 or later.
Digital Citizen
Rumor has it that the "social just-us" CoC-mongers, who have of late been raping and pillaging Free Software projects, are bankrolled by Microsoft. They already purged Linus, and they're clearly planning to purge everyone else who doesn't lick corporate boots.
Remember: embrace, extend, extinguish!
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Here is a paper explaining what the GPL is and is not:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations).
(PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 begins the explanation of all the ways the GPL is not a contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines.
Remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects, omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2 of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.
(Note: The SFConservancy recently chose to publish a "correction" that conflates clauses, within version 2 of the GPL, [that clarify that if a licensee's license is revoked by operation of the license for a violation of the terms, that sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn automatically revoked] - [with an inexistent irrevocability doctrine within the text of the GPLv2])
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor); the SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disingenuous)
The Linux Kernel License grant: .: Can be rescinded at will.
Is Not: a contract. [No breach of contract damages vs grantor if rescinded]
Is: a bare license akin to a property license.
And: There is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. [No promissory estopple defense]
Microsoft also joined the LOT Network prior to the OIN, which also provides a non-assertion mechanism for transferred IP, in general. The SFC response in either of these cases is disappointing, to say the least. While the points they raise are valid, I would expect a more collaborative approach in the case this does indeed mark a change in Microsoft policy, and to build on that at a later stage to try and address the points raised. Many of the top contributing organisations to Linux (and the kernel, especially) today have a long history of aggression against open source - while others have been open source friendly, and ultimately became hostile - even years before the SFC existed.
but he'll never stop blathering basic shit.
TRAP, wake up call
ad hominem attacks ftw!!!
Trust Microsoft at your own peril.
A lot of us are against software patents in the first place. So it's kinda like a non-aggression pact.
> A lot of us are against software patents in the first place
That's certainly true. Unfortunately, such people are against a non-existent concept. To make such a statement one has to believe there is such a thing as a "software patent".
The thing is, the exact same patented algorithm, written in any algorithmic language such as C, can be rendered both as an ELF executable (inarguably software) and as a gate array (inarguably hardware). Every patent that covers any algorithm that can be rendered as software can also be rendered as hardware. Therefore there simply is no such thing as a software patent.
> Go implement exfat in a hardware gate array.
That's trivial to do. bambu is a hardware compiler based on gcc. You run gcc with bambu and it spits out a file in a hardware description language known as Verilog. You feed the Verilog to the machine that makes the actual hardware chip according to the instructions in the Verilog. The chip can be made by assembling it as an ASIC, or by burning it, removing the parts you don't want, like a you would a stone sculpture. If it's made by removing unwanted connections that's called an FPGA.
Compare using the same source file and some of the same tools to render it as software. If you want to end up with a software rendition, you again run gcc to generate intermediate files. Those intermediate files are then fed to a linker.
Speculation, but maybe they really have got Linux religion this time, given that Azure now runs more Linux than Windows VMs, and even MS recognizes that Windows Phone is an abject failure. If they include exfat, that'll be a good sign - because that's one of the core patents that's been whispered about in the NDA-strong-armed discussions with Android vendors - if they're willing to weaken their stance on that front, that sounds significant.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Keep it simple: where is all the source code?
Nothing, so that is just blblay