03.28.07
Posted in Action, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law, Microsoft, Novell, Patent Covenant, Patents at 1:10 pm by Shane Coyle
For anyone who still says that GPLv2 doesn’t address patents, Groklaw had a link to an interesting piece about implied patent license aspects of GPLv2. I especially agree with PJ’s analysis that the Microvell deal is not harmonious with GPLv2, but rather it was more expedient to address the issue via a new license clause rather than litigation.
They wrote that about GPLv2. So if you think no one should use a software license to address patents, the GPL already does, my friends. So please don’t waste my time placing that thought in a comment on the draft. Read this article instead. That’s why the Novell-Microsoft patent deal sticks in the community’s craw, and why I personally doubt it is harmonious with GPLv2. I think that Eben Moglen just found an easier way to block it than through litigation. If you’ve followed the SCO Magical Mystery Tour, where after four years, we still don’t know what it’s actually about, you may be able to figure out why it could be easier and cheaper to just fix the license to make things crystal clear.
Well GPLv3 is definitely going to address patents, here is the patents section of the new draft, and it is constructed in no uncertain terms to tell Novell that their patent license deal (and any others like it) are unacceptable, "however denominated". Then, it grants an odd semi-exception to their deal which at first read had me quite confused.
11. Patents.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor’s essential patent claims in its contribution, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contribution.
For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent.
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) disclaim the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient’s use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.
You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License[, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].
Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
Here is the explanation of the cutoff date rationale [PDF] and "letting Novell off" from the FSF themselves.
Drafting this paragraph was difficult because it is necessary to distinguish between pernicious agreements and other kinds of agreements which do not have an acutely harmful effect, such as patent contributions, insurances, customary cross-license promises to customers, promises incident to ordinary asset transfers, and standard settlement practices. We believe that we have achieved this, but it is hard to be sure, so we are considering making this paragraph apply only to agreements signed in the future. If we do that, companies would only need to structure future agreements in accord with the fifth paragraph, and would not face problems from past agreements that cannot be changed now. We are not yet convinced that this is necessary, and we plan to ask for more comment on the question. This is why the date-based cutoff is included in brackets.
One drawback of this cutoff date is that it would “let Novell off” from part of the response to its deal with Microsoft. However, this may not be a great drawback, because the fourth paragraph will apply to that deal. We believe it is sufficient to ensure either the deal’s voluntary modification by Microsoft or its reduction to comparative harmlessness. Novell expected to gain commercial advantage from its patent deal with Microsoft; the effects of the fourth paragraph in undoing the harm of that deal will necessarily be visited upon Novell.
Update: Matt Asay has some on Novell’s his response to the draft, wherein Bruce Lowry also repeats Stafford Masie’s promise of GPL3 compliance – even if they must revisit their deal with Microsoft:
We are firmly committed to continuing the partnership with Microsoft and, as we always have, fully complying with the terms of the licenses for the software that we ship, including software licensed under GPL3. If the final version of the GPL3 does potentially impact the agreement we have with Microsoft, well address that with Microsoft.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, FUD, GNU/Linux, GPL at 4:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
We previously highlighted the way in which the press mischaracterises Linux. We also wondered it this was deliberate. Yesterday we even mentioned what appears to be a coordinated effort to portray the “Linux community” negatively, as though it is a bunch of zealots and vandals filled with greed. This pattern seems to repeat itself.
ChangeLog: Reuters gets it wrong, again
According to Reuters, the “Linux camp” is trying to “sabotage” the deal between Microsoft and Novell. One wonders if Reuters has a special interest in slinging misinformation about the Linux community, or just deeply misunderstands the Linux community and can’t be bothered to get it right.
In February, Reuters’ Jim Finkle reported that “Novell could be banned from selling Linux.” Our own Joe Barr gave the article a good Fisking, noting that Finkle is conflating the open source and free software communities, and that Finkle fails to understand that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) can do little to prevent Novell from shipping Linux. At best (or worst, depending on your point of view), the FSF could make it difficult to ship future versions of software it controls the copyright to.
Is somebody pulling strings in the media? This is no longer amusing, especially when Free software advocates are equated to terrorists. Steretypes make bigots. How about this quote from a Microsoft analyst?
“I have a hard time seeing the [Linux] Zealots as any different from terrorist… I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots” — Rob Enderle
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.27.07
Posted in Action, Intellectual Monopoly, Oracle, Patents at 8:25 am by Shane Coyle
From the attaboy department
Today it is expected that the Open Invention Network will announce a new member, Oracle. No word on exactly which patents Oracle will be making available to OIN…
On March 27, Oracle and the Open Invention Network (OIN) will announce that Oracle will become an OIN licensee. By doing this, Oracle opens the doors to making some of its patents available royalty-free to any company, institution, or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against Linux.
OIN members — which currently include IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat, and Sony — agree to assign software patents that might affect Linux to the OIN. These patents can then be used by anyone in Linux without having to pay any royalty fees or having to worry about future law suits.
Regular readers will know that I am a little critical of Oracle from time to time, so it’s very pleasing to be able to write a positive entry on them. Of course, I see the whole concept of stockpiling legally invalid software patents on behalf of GNU/Linux as just a symbolic effort, but it’s nice to see nonetheless.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.26.07
Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat at 10:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It turns out that not only Microsoft and Novell — but Oracle as well — play the game of FUD. This tactic can be a very powerful, however questionable it may seem. It leads to backlash and it repels customers, but overall, it’s proving to be quiot effective. The following article criticises Microsoft for engaging in such tactics.
The concept of indemnification is insidious. Rather than assuaging fears, it actually contributes to them because the risks involved are so vague. Who might file a lawsuit? What code will be involved? What sums will be named? What other companies might step up to defend against it? What will be the long-term implications of the suit? And given so many unknowns, how can you budget for indemnification? How much security are you really getting for your money?
It turns out, to use a parallel, that Oracle’s recent lawsuit against SAP is having the same sort of impact.
Intellectual property lawsuit may generate fear, uncertainty and doubt among customers, analysts say
When will the customers, the community, and the developers/volunteers be considered a high priority? These corporate games serve nobody apart from investors and executives. Wake up and smell the coffee, Novell. While your investors might be pleased, you anger quite a lot of people. Like Oracle, which strives to rob Red Hat’s business, or even Microsoft, which thinks it is “at war” with Linux, Novell seems to be fighting a war of FUD against other Linux distributors.
To make matters worse, at BrainShare, Novell escaped the real issue and chose to pretend that their war should remain a cold one. This leads to further uncertainty.
But while the chat discussed the interoperability component of the agreement between the companies, it ignored the covenant not to sue one another’s customers over patent infringements, which is the most controversial part of the deal for some in the open-source community.
So, to Novell, the strategy is clear. The writings on the wall remain: “we’ve signed a deal, we have no regrets about it, and we’re not willing to talk about it or resolve ambiguities”. Classic FUD.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Finance, Novell at 9:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While Novell would like you to believe that it has found prosperity in its controversial deal, truth suggests otherwise.
What Was Right–and Wrong–With Novell Brainshare
[...]
6. Novell Business Claims (Miss): Careful here, Novell. Your marketing videos poke fun at Apple and Windows , and state that Linux has 30 million users. Perhaps. But only a fraction of those users are running Novell’s version of Linux. Also, your event guide states that Novell is a $1 billion company. In reality, Novell’s revenue for 2006 was $967 million. If there’s another $33 million floating around somewhere, shareholders would certainly love to see it.
Now, consider this: Earlier this month, Novell was quietly making office space available for rent, stirring up rumours that layouts are inevitable. Would you really want to put your money on a company that seemingly implodes?
But here is another possibility: Have you heard about Intel’s layoffs of 10,000 staff? Or IBM’s layoffs of 13,000 European staff last year? Intel is currently building a $2.5-billion center in China and IBM recently created 14,000 new jobs in India. This is by no means criticism of offshoring, but merely a word of warning. Novell could fit in this puzzle as well. Consider support jobs in Novell’s Mumbai Centre. People who reside overseas can truly help Novell’s margins. And that is where certification has just been obtained.
Novell Mumbai Centre Gets SCP Certification
[...]
“Novell is the only Linux distributor to have this level of global capability. Now, Novell grows even stronger with the addition of the Mumbai centre,” said Mike Lyons, vice president, global support and services, Novell.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FSF, GNU/Linux at 9:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
There appear to be a new coordinated effort to discredit the FSF. Yesterday I spotted yet another attack on Stallman and the GPL, this time in computerworld.com.
After discussion with a few friends, as well as exchange of a few letters which were sent to editors, there is something to show to public. As I have obtained permission, I would like to share with the readers a discussion that Slated.org had with an editor about an article that, using some form of twisted humour, suggested that the FSF is hypocritical. It publicly portrayed the FSF/SFLC as money-making machine. Here are the relevant bits of the coversation:
Journalist: How exactly is disclosing absolutely no details about a seminar that’s three- to four-times the going rate for a legal seminar “transparent”?
Slated.org: I wasn’t aware that transparency was proportional, or in any way related to price. Perhaps you could explain that relationship to me.
As for the lack of details about this event; a legal seminar is not a policy meeting, it has no relevance to the drafting process which is, and remains, transparent. For someone who, by his own admission, knows nothing about this proposed seminar, you seem to have drawn some surprisingly certain conclusions about it.
Journalist: Is it ethical to use the information the steward of the GPL process to make money, particularly when that group is also the enforcement arm of the GPL?
Slated.org: It’s difficult to make sense of your poor grammar, but I think the gist of your meaning is that the SFLC are somehow behaving unethically, because they dare to charge a fee in order to explain the finer details and implications of a software license to some lawyers. So in your opinion, if one is working as a legal advisor in an organisation related to another which produces a legal document, that legal organisation is unethical if they spend time and money organising a seminar to explain
the details of that legal document to other lawyers, and then subsequently charge a fee for their time and effort.
I suggest that in future you spend time contemplating the semantics of an article, before you submit it for publication, and embarrass yourself.
Neither the costs nor the publicity (or lack thereof) of this event is in any way relevant, or contradictory, to the principles upheld by the FSF or its legal arm the SFLC.
In fact this entire issue is a non-event, not even worthy of the back pages of some crass tabloid.
Your genre of journalism is purely sensationalist, without substance or merit, and I find it surprising that The Register would retain someone of your ilk for any purpose other than humour.
Journalist: Are you a GPL fanboy?
Slated.org: That question pretty much confirms my suspicions about you.
To answer the question: No, I am not any sort of “fanboy”. Unlike you, I formulate opinions based on fact, not uniformed bigotry. As someone who purports to be a journalist, I would have assumed you’d understand how important that principle is in your line of work.
Commentary: I remembered this article very well, but in order to perserve anonymity, I will not link to it. It seems to have been either filled with malice or perhaps it was just a blunt expression of opinion with anti-FSF agenda. It was just one among many. You ought to know that many people have been paid in the past to do such things.
Maureen O’Gara, Dan Lyons, Rob Enderle, and Laura DiDio are all notorious for their bias (and sometimes their funding sources). Only by standing up, as Slated.org did above, can we truly discourage this from recurring. Other victims include: Richard Stallman, OLPC, OpenDocument, PJ/Groklaw…
Returning to the correspondence, here is the presumably final reply, which indicates that the journalist has given up.
Journalist: My piece speaks for itself. I stand by it. I respect your opinions, even though I disagree with most of them.
Slated.org has an afterthought to share: Hmm, yes I can certainly feel the “respect” and sincerity.
So in the end, another one of the brainwashed sheep bleats back into his pen, with yet another reason to hate FOSS and its advocates.
Sorry, but I can’t help myself. If someone rants about Linux because of a genuine technical problem, I’m more inclined to respond positively and helpfully (I understand frustration as much as the next man).
But here we have a journalist, who presumably understands the responsibility that such a position entails, who without any technical nor rational reason decides to attack FOSS based on nothing… absolutely nothing at all. A veritable storm in a teacup, and all in the name of sensationalist journalism. It’s despicable; it truly is, and (again) sorry but I’m disinclined to show any mercy. He’s been Slated® and he’ll feel the burn for a long time to come.
You may have noticed a considerable reduction of my activity this past week; there is a particular reason for that.
Since the miserable flop that was the Vista launch, and the ensuing dissent in the Blogosphere, the MS-payroll journos have been out in full force poisoning that Blogosphere with anti-FOSS sentiment, in a desperate (and futile IMHO) exercise in damage limitations. I find it very disconcerting, and I determined myself to do something about it. This publisher is just one of many I’ve been “moderating” this past week; here’s another:
http://blogs.cio.com/what-cios-dont-get-about-open-source
I must say I really like Bernard Golden’s style and frankness, but apparently he’s upset a few Munchkins who have infiltrated his Blog with poison posts. If you look down at the comments, the second one is by some idiot called James Gingerich @ iAnywhere Solutions (remind me never to buy anything from them). My comments follow (posted as “Slated”). You’ll notice that he had no response to my follow up. IOW he admits his anti-FOSS dissent is just bigotry, he gives up, he’s been Slated®.
I’m seriously considering dedicating a new section of Slated.org to these Shills that I have given a public bitch-slapping, because I think people really need to be aware this kind of Blog poisoning is going on.
There’s an increasing amount of this sort of activity, both on Blogs and also on more traditional Tech News sites, much of it (rather disturbingly) emanating from (supposedly) contract journalists. My feeling is that the level of anti-FOSS bigotry has not actually increased at all, it’s just the level of exposure of that bigotry is on the rise. IOW the bigots are feeling more threatened than ever, so they are protesting ever more vocally.
That is the surest sign I’ve seen yet, that Linux advocacy is succeeding, and that the Microsoft FUD is failing; that Linux adoption is now epidemic, and Windows dissent is more rife than ever.
Commentary again: An InformationWeek writer, for a change, takes a stance that favours free software.
I’ve come to the conclusion that software should be free. And I mean really free–as in free beer. Or free advice.
Let us hope that the press will sidle with logic, rather than the money machine.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA