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).
Step 2: Android
This is confusing... Windows has used the FreeBSD network stack for how long? MacOS as an entirety uses how much FreeBSD code? Yeah, it has been buddy buddy with big-tech far longer than Linux.
Well, code under both the MIT and BSD licenses can be used in GPL's code, but since licenses like some of the BSD licenses allow for future code to be closed, there for removing the freedom of future uses, the GPL code can't be used in the BSD projects. Which is why GPL projects tend to do better (Example: Open Office [Apache] vs Libre Office [LGPLv3]). The GPL code can use all the features of the BSD code, but not the other way around. "GPL is not freedom". You definition of "Freedom" is different then mine. Your version of freedom is giving people the right to take away other people's rights by locking down code. That's like saying one country is "more free" because they don't restrict people from owning slaves. You might as well just put your code in the public domain at that point.
So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?
Why would you want that? More to the point, why would you expect Microsoft to do something like that?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
Difference here is that anything bsd has got from big corps is under that bsd license too. It's safe to use anything in bsd in someplace else including other operating systems which is what makes bsd so attractive to big corps in the first place. Take on the other hand what Microsoft is doing here. They are giving away their patents to use in linux but outside linux, you still have to pay. That will make linux code unsafe for use in other open and closed source operating systems because it will be a mess separating out what belongs to trigger happy Microsoft. Basically this will stifle the development of other operating systems while Microsoft reaps the benefits of linux in their azure business.
So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?
In many cases, yes. The GPL is often appropriate for full applications. BSD is often better for components, libraries, and interfaces, when you want wide adoption, even by proprietary vendors. TCP/IP (i.e. "The Internet") is a good example of this being successful.
Even the FSF has conceded that the standard GPL is often inappropriate for libraries and components, so they have the "Lesser" LGPL for that purpose.
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
All to easy, exactly why is M$ taking this approach, well, their patents are coming to an end and the dickbags want everyone eles's stuff for free, as M$'s patents expire. The only serious response to M$ should be, GO FUCK YOURSELVES.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Your version of freedom is giving people the right to take away other people's rights by locking down code.
I've never understood this logic. Nothing from the original code is lost or diminished in any way. It's guaranteed to remain free and open in perpetuity.
I've written a couple of open source libraries, and I use the MIT license. I don't see how my code is diminished by someone using it in their closed source projects. On the contrary, the more people use it, the more bugs and usability issues are found and fixed, and everyone benefits. If someone makes improvements, it's in their own best interest to get those improvements into the mainline, otherwise the code diverges and they can't reap the benefit of future use. I feel any benefits lost to enforcing open-source-only rules are more than made up for by having a permissive license. Some of the most popular 3rd party libraries in the world benefit from this philosophy, like zlib and SQLite.
I don't necessarily think GPL is bad or wrong, but it seems to have different priorities than permissive licenses. I feel like it's primary aim is to promote the growth of open source, whereas the other licenses only seek to preserve themselves as open source.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
"Full BSD" license code is GPL incompatible. Only modified BSD (lacking the advertising clause) is compatible.
And saying GPL can take BSD code and not vice versa is the same as "locking up BSD" code - except GPL fanboys always say "you can close source BSD code" instead of "you can GPL BSD code" because both have the exact same result - closed source or GPL, the code is no longer available to the original BSD project. Just they refuse to admit that GPL can lock up BSD code just as much as closed source "evil" can.
That's why some feel the hypocrisy - GPL fans always say BSD code can be "closed" which makes GPL better. Yet the GPL can close BSD code just as much as closed source code can. Except the GPL can also say "Look, we fixed your bug and you can't have it!".
From a BSD perspective, "closed source" lockup is exactly the same as "GPL" lockup. Except the closed source folks generally don't say their license is superior.
Personally, I like GPLv2, so my code is generally mixed license - BSD (full) and GPLv2 (only). Never really liked GPLv3 so those mix of licenses lets me release my code without having to deal with GPLv3 (because you cannot mix v2-only code with GPLv3).
Trust Microsoft at your own peril.
Except the GPL can also say "Look, we fixed your bug and you can't have it!".
If I release software under BSD license, even the 3-clause modified BSD license, and you fix a bug, then you'd best inform me of the fix.
In case you choose not to do so: I can still incorporate the patch or fix if you release a project containing my BSD-Licensed code with a patch or fix.
Even if you license your overall project under GPL: the file you got that was under the BSD license, and any derivative works thereof, may only be distributed under the terms of the BSD license: It's just called redistribution of the source and/or binary forms with modification --- you are very much allowed to distributed my BSD-licensed code with modification also called a Derivative work; However, in order to do so, you MUST retain the copyright, license, and list of conditions, specifically clause [1]:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
As you can see: you're required to retain the same list of conditions for code redistributed, even distributed with modification, therefore: I can simply compare the modified version fixing bugs to the original, and add the fixes to be distributed under the same list of conditions.
The list of conditions is required to be maintained, even if your non-modifications are nontrivial and you could (in theory) otherwise claim exclusive copyrights to them; However, something such as a one-line Bugfix is just a derived work --- and the copyright to a derived work and code with other minor changes not having required major creative effort remains solely with the original author of the code you modified or fixed.