The main problem I see is that companies don't have much economic inducement to apply for their patents in the name of the pool, which would give them all essentially the same advantage from the patents as if they had simply published the invention as prior art. In general the companies wish to continue to license their patents to proprietary software creators and to trade them with other companies not in the pool for cross licenses. The companies that have contributed to the OSDL pool in general only want to carve out a narrow permission for Open Source software without otherwise losing the value of their patents. For the plan to work, it has to be visibly in the company's best interest. The problem we have is that the patent system pits the company's best interest against Open Source. Of course it's worse than that, I think it pits the company's best interests against the entire economy.
if for example, the 500 patents IBM donated have in fact been transferred to the full ownership of the EFF?
What we had from IBM was a covenant not to sue, not any sort of transfer. It was not useful for defensive purposes. And Stu's remarks in Business Week led me to believe that the 3000 patents were all that sort of covenant. I asked him to clear this up in email. He did not put anthing concrete in writing and offered to talk with me on the phone. That probably won't happen until late this week.
I surmise that there is no strength to the pool at this time.
I'd add to your analysis that OSDL's controlling members - the folks who pay the most and get board seats - have agreements with MS.
Regarding Rob's snotty remark about the non-profits I've created, most are successful, so I don't see his point:
No-Code International - helped eliminate Morse code tests for ham radio licensing in 25 nations so far, got the ITU treaty fixed.
Software in the Public Interest - managing Debian's assets and those of a number of other projects. Recently awarded $6000/year grant and makes $20K to $40K in contributions per year.
Linux Standard Base - created a lot of useful work. Could be better accepted by application vendors, maybe the DCCA (blame Ian Murdock for that one and the previous LCC) will help.
Sincere Choice and Global Technology Policy Institute - after I started these, real universities offered to back me, so they became less relevant. But donations were put to good use in the patents and standards fight.
UserLinux - not yet. I've not given up.
I can't believe anyone would consider this a bad record. Even having 1/4 of ones ideas pan out is better than most folks could ever ask for.
While I was an employee of HP, Microsoft disclosed to HP their plan to take down various Open Source software using a software patent attack. This became public knowledge some years after I left HP, the memo is on Newsforge and it was reported on CNET and elsewhere. Microsoft was diverted by the anti-trust and a desire to wait for their patent legislation to be passed in Europe. Had Microsoft brought suit, it could have worked against the legislation. But now that legislation has fallen anyway. They are free to move if they want to.
But you are right that they are not the only possible agressor. It's also possible they could use a proxy. Many people believe that SCO is their proxy today.
My office phone number is 510-526-1165 and it rings in my home too. I leave it off the hook when my family is asleep, so you don't run the risk of bothering us. If you feel I'm doing the wrong thing, call me and discuss it. I may convince you otherwise.
I'd be happy with a trade of ideological purity for practical matters if the trade showed some prospect of working. So far, this doesn't. OSDL's controlling members (the big ones with board seats) for the most part are cross-licensed with MS. They are also some of the world's biggest software patent holders, and a solution to the problem isn't in their interest.
I support Eben's efforts to change patent law. Daniel Ravicher has been successful at reversing a Microsoft patent, and we need to do a lot more of those. I don't support the pool at this time because I feel it can actually hurt the overall effort. Note that I am not alone in this, Florian of NoSoftwarePatents.org, an organization that has been incredibly effective in saving our butts in Europe, said the same thing.
When OSDL has an effective patent pool, they will show us how it can be effective. Until then, I believe that belief in the pool only diverts people from solving the problem.
I understand that Eben Moglen and others were involved, and Eben is no dunce. I also understand that at this time, the pool is a gesture, not something effective, and indeed may hurt efforts to actually solve the problem.
If you think this pool can work against Microsoft and their proxies, show us how. Show us how it will avoid the obligations of the controlling board members of OSDL. Show us how it avoids the agreements of the contributors. And show us how solving the problem is even in the interest of OSDL's board members, who are some of the largest software patent holders in the world.
A pool operated by OSDL may simply be ineffective because OSDL's controlling members, the big ones who have board positions, for the most part already have cross-licenses with Microsoft.
There is also the fact that OSDL's controlling members are some of the world's largest software patent holders, and a real solution to the problem simply isn't in their interest.
When we fight against the embedding of software patents in standards, we are generally fighting IBM. This has been true at W3C, OASIS, and elsewhere.
Thus, I doubt the effectiveness, and indeed I am afraid that I even doubt the sincerity of the patent pool.
VMWare would not come in for this sort of posting had they not said that they were making the "best combination of Open Source and proprietary", and then released something that appears to contain no Open Source at all. It would be a disservice to the community and the reader to refrain from pushing back on that sort of PR.
I agree that there isn't much news to be had here. Fortunately, I don't have to fix that problem too.
I understand that you need it Tuesday, and you are welcome to pay VMWare for those features. This doesn't change the fact that the announcement isn't news.
Yes, the other virtual machine programs spoof the hosted OS by emulating the interrupt controller and some other hardware. This code for the most part already exists in other Open Source projects, and if someone wants it enough, it could be added to Xen. It would never be the optimal path for hosting an OS, though. Porting the OS makes it run better.
XP is an interesting question. It already has a microkernel that it uses for DRM, called the NIB. You could probably host it by emulating that.
VMWare is opening its API up to partners? It's a typical NDA agreement between companies. Not very exciting and not worthy of a press release - except for the fact that they don't have another way to generate buzz around Linuxworld. Meanwhile Xen is gaining ground, is a technically better approach, and is real Open Source. VMWare? Yawn.
After I left HP, HP negotiated a non-agression pact with Microsoft. One of the results of this is that Microsoft required HP to edit the cover of the version of Revolution OS that HP distributed to remove the slashed-cirle containing a Windows logo and my photo on the DVD jacket. As far as I'm aware, the internal content is unchanged.
When I do programming for myself, with my own money, I do it under the GPL. That way, I can share my software, and if someone doesn't want to share they can pay for a commercial license. When a customer pays me to do BSD-licensed software, I do it happily.
The BSD license is great if you are a big company and lots of little folks like me are contributing BSD software that you can use in any proprietary way you wish. But it's not so great for those little people, because they are functioning as sort of unpaid employees. GPL gives the whole situation a balance.
If you take the range of GPL, LGPL or GPL + exception, and BSD, you have a range of licenses for essentially any business purpose. Each has their strong and weak points.
Unfortunately, BPL has already proven to be a very obnoxious radiator of energy into in-use communication bands. The problem is that when you put energy into a wire, that wire is always also an antenna radiating that energy. Power lines make excellent transmitting antennas, and a single installation can take out many forms of communications for at least a mile arond the wire, and because of ionospheric "skip", the interference from a single installation can have a global impact.
Sure, signals can get into the wire when a strong station is close by, but they always get out.
Currently they support AMP on Red Hat. Windows is a future product. What, you don't want Open Source to make inroads on Windows platforms? What better way to win those folks over? Better tell the Mozilla and Apache projects you don't like what they are doing.
Sorry about mis-stating Brad's former occupation. The ex-CFO of MS is there, and I did confuse two statements about him with Brad.
Open Source and Free Software are two different means of marketing the same thing. When I wrote the Debian Free Software Guidelines, Stallman said it was a good definition of Free Software. That document became the Open Source Definition. It's unfortunate that ESR felt that the Open Source campaign had to deprecate Stallman. That was not my intention and I've always been bothered that it happened.
Because they don't believe it's necessary for them to go into competition with Linux distributions. There is, however, virtue in having one finger to point to. No doubt the business strategy will evolve over time.
This seems to boil down to an argument that cathedral-style management of all APIs relevant to third-party applications is necessary if they are to work. Certainly they will be made to work more easily that way.
But from a standpoint of supporting a diverse ecology of software producers and lots of competition, the cathedral isn't the most desirable structure. It seems that when one pays a draconian cost (central control) to solve smaller problems (package dependencies, file locations), it might not be the best deal in the end. I'm still endeavoring to provide a better solution to this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
What we had from IBM was a covenant not to sue, not any sort of transfer. It was not useful for defensive purposes. And Stu's remarks in Business Week led me to believe that the 3000 patents were all that sort of covenant. I asked him to clear this up in email. He did not put anthing concrete in writing and offered to talk with me on the phone. That probably won't happen until late this week.
I surmise that there is no strength to the pool at this time.
Thanks
Bruce
The present GPL has it. The only increase in anti-software-patent language I can think of would be the addition of a mutual-defense clause.
Bruce
Regarding Rob's snotty remark about the non-profits I've created, most are successful, so I don't see his point:
I can't believe anyone would consider this a bad record. Even having 1/4 of ones ideas pan out is better than most folks could ever ask for.
Bruce
But you are right that they are not the only possible agressor. It's also possible they could use a proxy. Many people believe that SCO is their proxy today.
Bruce
My office phone number is 510-526-1165 and it rings in my home too. I leave it off the hook when my family is asleep, so you don't run the risk of bothering us. If you feel I'm doing the wrong thing, call me and discuss it. I may convince you otherwise.
Bruce
But if it did result in a discussion that made the pool into something effective, that would be cool.
Bruce?
Thanks
Bruce
When OSDL has an effective patent pool, they will show us how it can be effective. Until then, I believe that belief in the pool only diverts people from solving the problem.
Bruce
If you think this pool can work against Microsoft and their proxies, show us how. Show us how it will avoid the obligations of the controlling board members of OSDL. Show us how it avoids the agreements of the contributors. And show us how solving the problem is even in the interest of OSDL's board members, who are some of the largest software patent holders in the world.
Bruce
A pool operated by OSDL may simply be ineffective because OSDL's controlling members, the big ones who have board positions, for the most part already have cross-licenses with Microsoft.
There is also the fact that OSDL's controlling members are some of the world's largest software patent holders, and a real solution to the problem simply isn't in their interest. When we fight against the embedding of software patents in standards, we are generally fighting IBM. This has been true at W3C, OASIS, and elsewhere.
Thus, I doubt the effectiveness, and indeed I am afraid that I even doubt the sincerity of the patent pool.
Thanks
Bruce
I agree that there isn't much news to be had here. Fortunately, I don't have to fix that problem too.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
XP is an interesting question. It already has a microkernel that it uses for DRM, called the NIB. You could probably host it by emulating that.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
The BSD license is great if you are a big company and lots of little folks like me are contributing BSD software that you can use in any proprietary way you wish. But it's not so great for those little people, because they are functioning as sort of unpaid employees. GPL gives the whole situation a balance.
If you take the range of GPL, LGPL or GPL + exception, and BSD, you have a range of licenses for essentially any business purpose. Each has their strong and weak points.
Bruce
Sure, signals can get into the wire when a strong station is close by, but they always get out.
Bruce
Goats really do fight brush fires. They eat the brush. The park district brings them around here twice a year.
Sorry about mis-stating Brad's former occupation. The ex-CFO of MS is there, and I did confuse two statements about him with Brad.
Open Source and Free Software are two different means of marketing the same thing. When I wrote the Debian Free Software Guidelines, Stallman said it was a good definition of Free Software. That document became the Open Source Definition. It's unfortunate that ESR felt that the Open Source campaign had to deprecate Stallman. That was not my intention and I've always been bothered that it happened.
Bruce
One finger to point to. :-) Garble. I mean one party to point your finger to.
Because they don't believe it's necessary for them to go into competition with Linux distributions. There is, however, virtue in having one finger to point to. No doubt the business strategy will evolve over time.
Bruce
This seems to boil down to an argument that cathedral-style management of all APIs relevant to third-party applications is necessary if they are to work. Certainly they will be made to work more easily that way.
But from a standpoint of supporting a diverse ecology of software producers and lots of competition, the cathedral isn't the most desirable structure. It seems that when one pays a draconian cost (central control) to solve smaller problems (package dependencies, file locations), it might not be the best deal in the end. I'm still endeavoring to provide a better solution to this problem.
Bruce