FSF can fight this one. There's software that they own and that Novell can't dispense with, like GNU LIBC. I'm not sure it's a hard case to win, the license is pretty clear on this issue and there's no doubt that Novell has accepted it.
I agree that this puts Novell in pretty much the same position that SCO wanted - profiting from intellectual property FUD as Microsoft's proxy, and I've no doubt that they'll try to shake down Red Hat customers. It's important that folks like you continue to point out what's going on, and the injustice inherent in it. Because Novell is going to be lobbying for increases in software patenting at Microsoft's side. Don't let them win.
If any MS patent reads onto any GNU program, I'm sure the issue is already either under review or dealt with thanks to the SCO idiotfest.
Unfortunately, no. SCO wasn't a patent case. And in general, engineers do not look at patents. One of the pernicious elements of U.S. patent law is that you pay triple damages for knowing infringement. So, knowing anything about existing patents that might apply to your code can cost your company Millions. Thus, most companies instruct their engineers not to look at patents, and the Open Source developers in general do the same.
Indeed, a few years ago attorney Dan Ravicher came up with a list of patents that potentially applied to the Linux kernel. But he couldn't show them to us, because that would increase our risk.
You're forgetting that Novell includes a large body of existing code. All that would have to happen is for FSF to find a program that they own and that is in Novell, and then find an MS patent that might read upon it, and sue Novell for a license to that patent that is compliant with the GPL language. There goes GNU LIBC, GCC, etc., and Novell can't get along without them.
First, nobody named Tom Wickline wrote any of the words that are quoted in the Slashdot story or in the Inquirer article. They are a distorted copy of an article I wrote yesterday. If you'd like to see the entire article, it's here. And it explains much more clearly why we should be concerned.
He's the FSF's attorney and the attorney most knowledgable about the GPL. He's also a legal school instructor at Columbia and very smart. I'd not suggest you dismiss him out of hand so easily.
Even if he's not seen the language, he knows that the GPL prohibits all such agreements that include any party that has accepted the GPL - as Novell of course has.
While the threat is Microsoft, Novell in this case is very actively making the threat worse.
Who to contribute to? I think the Free Software Foundation, and the Public Patents Institute do more about this particular issue, although EFF is also worthy.
If you don't have the money, one way to help is to pass on the message. Show articles to friends, etc. It's unfortunate that my message got so garbled this time.
And when FSF says they need you to use GPL3, listen. People have been too fast to dismiss them. But their job is to protect us from people who would distribute our software and then turn coat in a way that hurts us as Novell has.
Novell distributes Linux. The GPL is very clear that they aren't allowed to have an agreement like this and still distribute software under the GPL. Essentially, any holder of GPL software in Novell's distribution can sue Novell for breaking their license, unless Novell extends the same patent protection to everyone.
Or is the concern that, if there's even a perceived threat, it will hamper use of OSS in business?
I visit lots of business customers, and can tell you for sure that the threat has hurt us and this will increase the hurt.
You're not thick, just uninformed. The problem is that any company that can afford a lawyer can bring a software patent lawsuit, and they are very expensive to fight. The American Intellectual Property Law Association estimates a cost of three to five Million dollars to defend against such a lawsuit. And anyone who wants to deter a customer from going with Open Source can threaten such suits.
The result is a sort of extortion in which the lawsuit victims have to pay up instead of fighting the case, even if the claim against them is unjust, or go bankrupt, or stay away from Open Source in the first place. It seems to me to be a tremendous miscarriage of justice.
What's stopping Microsoft from demanding patent royalties of everyone, for every software written within the past 21 years? Not really anything. And that seems to be the direction they are heading in.
You're missing this very clear language in the GPL.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Well, the FA (and it's appropriate to use the F this time) is actually a quote of something I wrote here and my version is a lot more coherent. So, hopefully you can get some more sense by reading that.
And I'm a bit annoyed at not being attributed in the FA.
Actually, you can't patent a large piece of software that takes years to write.
You can only patent an algorithm or a process.
In general, these translate to small parts of an overall body of software. So what protection is there for large works? Copyright. If you put in a lot of time to write something, other folks aren't allowed to copy your work without permission. They have to put in time just like you did.
How about a patent system that was based on sound economic policy? We don't really have much reason to believe that software patenting promotes innovation in software. Indeed, if you look at the tremendous success of Open Source, the thing they do differently from the rest is that they eschew most intellectual property protection. And they are certainly not short on innovation.
A lot of this is because software is one of the few products that can be effectively produced with reasonably low capital input and has essentially no cost of manufacture once it's been created. Letting everyone get their hands on an idea will be more effective for that sort of product.
So, I submit that a sensibly defined patent system would not have software and business methods within its scope.
What, you think the biggest patent holders in the world, the sponsors of this program, have the most to gain from having the Open Source community help them make their patents bullet-proof before they're granted so that court challenges of them won't survive later on? How cynical of you!
Uh-huh. If we are counting people who got rich by being geeks, unlike the very many scientists who have been to space, pretty much all space tourists belong on the list. Dennis Tito was an engineer and his investment consulting business included quantitive analysis. If we are scoring operating systems, Shuttleworth was a Debian user while building Thawte.
I agree that the wording is not as clear as it should be, but the word product is significant here. They aren't objecting to packages of their own software that are modified for an environment. The language would prevent you from making a product called "Apache-PRO" (don't laugh, there was a Linux-PRO once) or an IDE called "PHP Builder".
OSI will indeed certify licenses with trademark language, although they have in the past encouraged vendors to put their trademark terms in a separate document. That doesn't mean that the licenses are always practical or well-reasoned.
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
Every use of "Apache" on modified versions of the server that I've seen is a description of the origin of the work.
I'm far from sanguine that it says what you think it says.
Oh, gee, Russ. It might be helpful if you were to actually provide some evidence to refute what I said, instead of just abuse. I know you call yourself "the angry economist", but it really seems that you're just angry.
Actually, I have this from Pixar's head attorney, Larry Sonsini, some years ago. At the time, we were considering how much we needed to enforce the "Renderman" mark.
But I looked at 14 USC 1064 (3), which says you can lose your trademark if:
(3) At any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or is functional, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 4 or of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 2 for a registration under this Act, or contrary to similar prohibitory provisions of such said prior Acts for a registration under such Acts, or if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used.
If the registered mark becomes the generic name for less than all of the goods or services for which it is registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or services may be filed.
A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a unique product or service.
The primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used.
And then 45 USC 1127 (way down the page, not sure of the paragraph numbering)
Abandonment of mark.
A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" if either of the following occurs:
(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. "Use" of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.
(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a test for determining abandonment under this paragraph.
There's nothing more frustrating than trying to track down a tiny little package on RPMFind because the distro doesn't support it in the repository
I swear, in 15 years of using Linux I've never had to do this.
Perhaps the most difficult segment for any repository is games.
Uh-huh. Maybe that's why I'm not spending any time around RPMFind. I don't play them. Maybe the world needs some folks who put as much care into packaging leading-edge games as Debian puts into their 15515 packages.
But I do build stuff that's not packaged in Debian from time to time. The Ruby stuff is trivial because their gem packager does dependencies and they are for the most part architecture-independent. That's where most of my development is, but I wrote an Insteon driver in C using libHID recently. I built LigHTTPD a few times recently. And I am using the GNURadio and USRP stuff for a teaching project, which is leading edge. I did at one point ask the GNURadio and USRP package maintainers to rebuild their packages, which they graciously did.
Unfortunately, Bon Echo and Deer Park are version names. We need non-version-dependent stable branding that unifies modified versions and the official firefox into a consistent branding program. The Official Debian CD (really the only place Debian uses their official-use logo) and their unofficial-use logo seem to do this well.
This depends on case law rather than the U.S. Code. You have to look for cases where a trademark was held to be invalid and read what the judge said. If you asked PJ at Groklaw, she could find that, and it would make a good article.
In my Open Source State of the Union given at the Boston LinuxWorld Expo, on April 5, I mentioned the Abramoff connection. It's interesting to see more documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that this puts Novell in pretty much the same position that SCO wanted - profiting from intellectual property FUD as Microsoft's proxy, and I've no doubt that they'll try to shake down Red Hat customers. It's important that folks like you continue to point out what's going on, and the injustice inherent in it. Because Novell is going to be lobbying for increases in software patenting at Microsoft's side. Don't let them win.
Bruce
Darn. I put the wrong URL above. This http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945 is the right URL.
Unfortunately, no. SCO wasn't a patent case. And in general, engineers do not look at patents. One of the pernicious elements of U.S. patent law is that you pay triple damages for knowing infringement. So, knowing anything about existing patents that might apply to your code can cost your company Millions. Thus, most companies instruct their engineers not to look at patents, and the Open Source developers in general do the same.
Indeed, a few years ago attorney Dan Ravicher came up with a list of patents that potentially applied to the Linux kernel. But he couldn't show them to us, because that would increase our risk.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Even if he's not seen the language, he knows that the GPL prohibits all such agreements that include any party that has accepted the GPL - as Novell of course has.
Bruce
Who to contribute to? I think the Free Software Foundation, and the Public Patents Institute do more about this particular issue, although EFF is also worthy.
If you don't have the money, one way to help is to pass on the message. Show articles to friends, etc. It's unfortunate that my message got so garbled this time.
And when FSF says they need you to use GPL3, listen. People have been too fast to dismiss them. But their job is to protect us from people who would distribute our software and then turn coat in a way that hurts us as Novell has.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
I visit lots of business customers, and can tell you for sure that the threat has hurt us and this will increase the hurt.
You're not thick, just uninformed. The problem is that any company that can afford a lawyer can bring a software patent lawsuit, and they are very expensive to fight. The American Intellectual Property Law Association estimates a cost of three to five Million dollars to defend against such a lawsuit. And anyone who wants to deter a customer from going with Open Source can threaten such suits.
The result is a sort of extortion in which the lawsuit victims have to pay up instead of fighting the case, even if the claim against them is unjust, or go bankrupt, or stay away from Open Source in the first place. It seems to me to be a tremendous miscarriage of justice.
What's stopping Microsoft from demanding patent royalties of everyone, for every software written within the past 21 years? Not really anything. And that seems to be the direction they are heading in.
Bruce
And I'm a bit annoyed at not being attributed in the FA.
Bruce
Several lines above are quotes of me and I'm not attributed. And my writing is coherent, unlike the article cited here. The real article is here.
You can only patent an algorithm or a process.
In general, these translate to small parts of an overall body of software. So what protection is there for large works? Copyright. If you put in a lot of time to write something, other folks aren't allowed to copy your work without permission. They have to put in time just like you did.
Bruce
A lot of this is because software is one of the few products that can be effectively produced with reasonably low capital input and has essentially no cost of manufacture once it's been created. Letting everyone get their hands on an idea will be more effective for that sort of product.
So, I submit that a sensibly defined patent system would not have software and business methods within its scope.
...sarcasm off. Of course you're right.
Bruce
Bruce
OSI will indeed certify licenses with trademark language, although they have in the past encouraged vendors to put their trademark terms in a separate document. That doesn't mean that the licenses are always practical or well-reasoned.
Bruce
I'm far from sanguine that it says what you think it says.
Bruce
Actually, I have this from Pixar's head attorney, Larry Sonsini, some years ago. At the time, we were considering how much we needed to enforce the "Renderman" mark.
But I looked at 14 USC 1064 (3), which says you can lose your trademark if:
And then 45 USC 1127 (way down the page, not sure of the paragraph numbering)This was on the web for you to look up.
Bruce
I swear, in 15 years of using Linux I've never had to do this.
Perhaps the most difficult segment for any repository is games.
Uh-huh. Maybe that's why I'm not spending any time around RPMFind. I don't play them. Maybe the world needs some folks who put as much care into packaging leading-edge games as Debian puts into their 15515 packages.
But I do build stuff that's not packaged in Debian from time to time. The Ruby stuff is trivial because their gem packager does dependencies and they are for the most part architecture-independent. That's where most of my development is, but I wrote an Insteon driver in C using libHID recently. I built LigHTTPD a few times recently. And I am using the GNURadio and USRP stuff for a teaching project, which is leading edge. I did at one point ask the GNURadio and USRP package maintainers to rebuild their packages, which they graciously did.
Thanks
Bruce
Ooh, good point. I wonder what would happen if Debian chose to rest on existing policy and started calling it Mozilla?
Thanks
Bruce
And now you've got it.
Unfortunately, Bon Echo and Deer Park are version names. We need non-version-dependent stable branding that unifies modified versions and the official firefox into a consistent branding program. The Official Debian CD (really the only place Debian uses their official-use logo) and their unofficial-use logo seem to do this well.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce