Red Hat Files for Software Patents 323
Marsala writes "Apparently Red Hat has filed two patent applications for stuff related to the TUX webserver. The patents are for Embedded Protocol Objects and Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up. One has to wonder (if their patents are granted) what their licensing terms will be.... free for open source, or a tool to try and screw other Linux distros?" As reported by Linux Weekly News.
Unfortunately... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the US patent office allows you to patent knives and forks, RH is assuming that they will have to patent the spork to guarantee their future rights to use it without paying royalties.
This just shows how sick the patent process is at the moment. I only wonder why someone hasn't patented callable functions--prior art hasn't seemed to be much of an obstacle in the past.
G
An excellent strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that they appear to be the way of the future (even in Europe, the organised eurolinux campaign seems to be struggling to hold off the "overly enthusiastic" patent office), the Free Software community should definitely use them when they discover nifty algorithms.
As someone above pointed out, the GPL guarantees that any GPL-dependent organisation (such as RedHat) will have to license software patents on a royalty-free basis for GPL software. It would be better to license them for all DFSG-free [debian.org] code. Note that such a license would not apply if, for example, Microsoft took some *BSD code an incorporated it in Win2k, because it's no longer DFSG-free.
The only question then is whether you charge royalties to proprietary software firms for use of the patented techniques, or whether you exclude them completely...
Re:money or principle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Expect a formal clarification from the Red Hat folks about this patent and usage (we didnt think it was news). Expect more patents too. In fact I've got two applications and I need to finish writing up - which I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted
Alan
Gilmore Patent (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that concerns me about this idea is that it seems like it might be easily circumventable, you could do something like set up a subsidiary that doesn't have any patents, and then funnel the money back to the parent company. Any IP lawyers out there have a feasibility assessment of this idea?
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
What's wrong with software patents anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a separate matter that the vast majority of the software patents are absolute garbage (like the (in)famous one-click shopping), but so are the patents in other areas (like Rambus, and that guy who patented sideways swinging...)
NOT a defensive move by Red Hat (Score:1, Interesting)
(From the GNU GPL):
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
So Red Hat may NOT enforce (in a traditional sense) their own patent in regard to their GNU GPLed software, which is derivative of others' GNU GPLed work on the kernel, without violating the license terms and losing the right to distribute the kernel.
Also remember that public companies may change strategy or be bought out by a competitor. If cash flow gets tight, doubt not that scruples will go out the window and previously "good" companies will turn to the dark side for the sake of the almighty buck.
Fortunately, the GNU GPL prevents such bad behavior in this case, which makes the patent puzzling from a practical standpoint. Perhaps it's a "feel-good" proprietary fix for the less-informed shareholders?
One interesting point, though, is that the preamble in the GNU GPL doesn't quite match up with the license terms. It appears that a company could enforce a patent as long as the code is NOT derivative! So you couldn't write your own Tux equivalent, but you COULD modify the existing code. This is quite odd.
Re:money or principle? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gilmore Patent (Score:2, Interesting)
mixing patent and copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're opposed to (software) patents, I hope you won't limit free licensing to GPLed software. While it may be difficult to implement, mutual defense [mit.edu] is the appropriate patent analog to the GNU GPL.
The intersection of copyright and patent opponents is smaller than either on its own. If you are in both camps, support them separately with copyleft and mutual defense. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something like that.
Don't point at Red Hat (Score:3, Interesting)
Software patents are ridiculous - they are the work of ONE MAN who both pushed the idea as a practice and later became a judge and ruled on the legality of his own creation! . Can you say "conflict of interest"? Historically software was properly ruled out as being unpatenable.