Linux Kernel Tainted by Software Patents That Make Linux Worse and the 'Linux' Foundation is Compiling Bribes to Enable This (Promotion of Monopolies and Tolerance of Software Patenting)
Why you need to reboot when a serious bug is found in Linux? "Licensing"...
This article is researched and coauthored by several people. It presents the knowns (or givens) and leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions.
For quite some time now we've pointed out (and provided supportive evidence) that the 'Linux' Foundation does whatever its big sponsors ask or have asked it to do. Facebook pays? Do surveillance. Microsoft pays? Openwash Microsoft. Anthropic pays? Actively promote slop everywhere. Money from 'crypto' (fake) coins and similar scammers? Then participate in scams and try to legitimise them. Misuse the brand "Linux" (associated with grassroots and trust). Lend credibility for a fee.
In the case of OIN, there's a lot of cross-pollination staff-wise, so the policy of the 'Linux' Foundation when it comes to software patents is, they're not a problem. Ignore the issue. Like the EFF tends to side with GAFAM and other sponsors. We'll do a series about this in the future as it relates to the attack on my family and I.
Today (or tomorrow) we need to reboot. 2 days ago we made plans to patch the kernel due to this bug - with coverage across the Net chronicled in this page. Hence the reboot for the kernel upgrade.
A few years ago, as an associate correctly points out, it would have been possible to hot-patch. That was about a decade ago. Then Oracle and others stepped in and obstructed/monopolised this to upsell their offerings.
The code was available. But that option was apparently killed off by software patents. They don't use that term, but their Web pages are a giveaway, for example: "This webpage is intended to serve as notice under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). It includes a listing of our representative products and the applicable patents. As innovation continues, so does our commitment to keeping this information accurate and up to date."
It's all about software patents:
Also consider this software patent:
It's about code, not hardware, based on another patent:
These patents can take another decade to expire.
There may also be some licensing problems as the patching may be proprietary and thus incompatible with Linux's GPLv2 licence:
However, we know nothing about live patches based on direct experience. I worked for 12 years in a company where the above company (CloudLinux) was our client, but that work did not involve patching. I did not interact with that client (CloudLinux) either. There was a bit of a scandal over the views of key staff regarding Ukraine/Russia, but that has nothing to do with CloudLinux or with Linux.
Somehow IBM/Red Hat, Canonical, and a few others are involved, asserts an associate. One would have to track what happened to kernel livepatching (kpatch, ksplice, and klp-build). Some companies get access to it:
There is something going on which blocks the general availability of livepatching, an associate asserts, and it is license/patent related.
The term licensing is often used as a euphemism for patent licensing. It's not a new problem. They say you need to pay for permission or get sued (over so-called 'IP'). If the code is secret, then it's a licence problem; if not, then it's the patents above.
The companies will certainly have made an effort to obfuscate the blame, an associate asserts.
Zemlin et al look the other way. They're too busy trying to raise money from slop pushers. The last thing they care about it stopping software patents or monopolies (the biggest source of income for these people, who pay themselves more than they pay Torvalds). █