Nokia Announces Patent Support to the Linux Kernel

Mictian writes "In conjunction with the introduction of Nokia's Linux Handheld mentioned earlier today, Nokia Corporation announced today that it allows all its patents to be used in the further development of the Linux Kernel. Nokia says, that it believes that open source software communities, like open standards, foster innovation and make an important contribution to the creation and rapid adaptation of technologies. And that the investment made by so many individuals and companies in creating and developing the Linux Kernel and other open source software deserve a framework of certainty."

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they believe in open source so much shouldn't that be *any* open source project as opposed to just the linux kernel?

As Bruce Perens said about IBM's similar action:

[Ubi_NL]

Is this in writing?
Is it in lawyer-compatible writing?
Is it written in a way that they cannot duck out of it Rambus style?

asdf

[mr_tommy]

Of course, Nokia would have done this regardless of the Tablet they launched today [theregister.co.uk], which, as if by coincidence, runs on Linux. And I'm even more certain it has nothing to do with a Nokia need to get some developer enthusiasm behind it's new software base. And it's got nothing to do with the lack of interest in the Symbian OS they've been running their other new phones off. And I'm sure Microsoft shouting about their new Mobile OS has even less to do with this.

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[Prospero's Grue]

It's a bold statement in principle, even if it hedges a little in practice... I still say they're deserving of some kudos from the Linux and OSS crowd.

Re:Fantastic!

[JoshRosenbaum]

I'm sure Nokia has hundreds of patents that could be useful for open source developers!

This will only be of use to open source developers of the Linux Kernel. It is not for all of Linux.

Syncing

[taskforce]

I'd say this would be a step forward to greater device intergration - an open source of version of a program like iSync with compatibility with propretary methods and cables of syncing data. Maybe a plugin for the new Thunderbird/Lightning project which syncs contacts, dates and messages with Nokia phones?

Just Linux?

[gr8_phk]

What if Linux were to fork? Would the "non-Linux" version be able to use the patents? It just doesn't make sense to grant permission to one project when it's under a GPL license. The whole point of the license is that you can do as you like with the code so long as you offer the same freedom with you redistribution of said code. What if some driver uses their patent and someone rips it out and puts that driver into the Hurd? The GPL is supposed to allow that type of thing, granting permission to use a patent for a particular project isn't really playing nice.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[garcia]

Perhaps they want to CTA in case something gets into the kernel that they really can't allow (i.e. something that depends on something that was patented by someone else or protected by a contract)?

Sorry but we have to reject this

[Baki]

As much good intentions Nokia may have at this time towards Linux and OSS in general, it is not acceptable to be at the mercy of such good will. Software patents need to be rejected on principle, and not be accepted because they happen to cause no damage AT THE MOMENT because of current good will.

Nokia is one of the main proponents of software patents in the European debate regarding this subject. The only answer is: we don't want your parents, we don't want any (software) patents in existance at all. Anything other would be very hypocritical.

when is a kernel not a kernel?

[acidrain]

How much modification can I make to the linux kernel before it is not the linux kernel? E.g. if I made it into a user-space image manipulation program that ran under windows? Here is the crux of my concern: if you liscence something to a open source program, you have given a liscence to the whole world to use it but under ambiguous terms. The only real restriction that I can see here is that the code has to remian GPL and that you need to prove some ancestry to the kernel, which can be a total farce involving a few copy commands... Otherwise if the version with their code has to come directly from Linus then they have seriously encumbered the kernel and that fails their GPL requirement. To sum up, if you are going to open up your technology to one open source project you should really open it up to everyone. Not to slag Nokia here, what they have done is great, and to be lauded, just if you are going to bring a case of beer to the party, you shouldn't write your friends names on the box. It's not cool and people will snag a bottle if they feel like it anyhow.

Read the small print before hyping

[mjrauhal]

The patent license seems to be purely a PR stunt without any real substance whatsoever.

First, they don't even assert that anything is covered by their patents.

Second, they assert a right to start acting up anyway if something that is covered by their patents ends up in the kernel.

Third, even if some patented thing in Linux was covered by this license, its use is only authorized in the Linux kernel as published on kernel.org (not even vendor- or self-patched versions), which is pretty useless.

Fourth, the above condition is incompatible with GPL's clause 7. It follows that if Nokia makes a credible patent claim on something that is in the kernel, then nobody has a valid license to distribute the kernel anymore until the patent issue is sorted out in the usual manner (that is, by getting a GPL-compatible license or working around it).

To sum it up, it seems they're just trying to shine their shield after bashing in some FFII heads here in the EU.

Nokia gives patents, does linux kern team want em?

[benow]

Nokia is giving patents (and relying on patent system), but should linux kernel team accept patented stuff to begin with? I mean, it's nice and all for Nokia to share, but shouldn't they be sharing equally regardless? The patent system is notoriously slow, imprecise and contains many erroneous/broad patents. I can't help but think that relying on such a system is like willingly introducing a bottleneck. The whole pantent structure is also resting upon enforcement, and the assumption that people cannot cooperate in the first place. Both consumers and producers must realize that there is more momentum and vitality thru cooperation than thru regulated/enforced proprietarianism... I'd stay away from the patented stuff to begin with. If they are well intentioned towards openness, let them go the whole way.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[RealAlaskan]

Well, it's not so good as all that, I think.

You can't take a routine from the kernel and use it in some other GPL'd program, because Nokia's Patent Statement would not apply. That sort of defeats one (at least one!) of the purposes of the GPL, doesn't it? What about code that starts out in some other GPL'd program, like emacs or kde? It's definitely not covered by their Patent Statement, unless it's already in the kernel, and then only for use in the kernel.

As for their reserving the right to enforce patents against future kernel features, I'm sure that boils down to something like this: ``If Linux starts to cut into our revenues, watch out!''

As I've said in another post, what we need from them is an irrevokable license to use their patents in any GPL'd program. This isn't that, but it costs us nothing, so we should say thanks, and get on with what we were doing, because nothing has changed.

Before the announcement, they weren't suing anyone, though they might have chosen to in the future. After the announcement, they aren't suing anyone, though they might choose to in the future. It is a nice goodwill gesture, but nothing has changed.

Re:Yay Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we like Nokia when they start lobbying against software patents in the EU.

Thankyou,

Slashdot groupthink coordinator.

They have already granted us this and more.

[MartinG]

By distributing linux with their new devices they are implicitly granting all recipients of these devices a license to patented code (if any) that may exist in linux under the terms of the GPL. This is because they have to distribute under the terms of the GPL or not distribute at all and the GPL makes it clear that no additional restrictions can be added (such as "we may revoke patent licenses at a later date" or "this is only for linux, not for other programs")

So because it is under the terms of the GPL, we are allowed to use patented code from linux (if any) in any other GPL programs. If they say we can not they are breaking the terms of the GPL and must stop distributing linux.

Of course it may be that they have no patents on any code in linux. In that case they can say what they want about how they can be used.

Also, if they do have patents on code in linux and they still impose their terms on it, as well as not being allowed to distribute it themselves they would be able to use their patents to prevent others distributing it unless they removed the patented code.

Software patents suck.

IANAL.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[njchick]

Also, code taken from the kernel to other projects is not fine. IANAL, but I guess it means that Linux itself cannot be distributed under GPL, because GPL doesn't allow any limitations on the right to reuse the code.

Not the point

[A nonymous Coward]

The point is that the kernel is governed by the GPL. The GPL forbids further restrictions. The kernel can't add code which must stay in the kernel; if it is in the kernel, it is GPL'd; if it is GPL'd, it can be redistributed and modified.

This Nokia announcement is worthless from a practical code point of view. It may be good marketing PR, but it will add no code to the kernel.

This is just a PR stunt!

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

The EU parlament are going to vote for software patents next week - so this is just a PR stunt to get the parlament members to think that Linux is safe and thus approve software patents in EU!

Re:Kind of vague first baby step

[RealAlaskan]

The statement means that if Nokia has a concept patented that would be beneficial to have in the kernel, the developers can write it and include it without fear of litigation.

Eh, not quite.

It means that if they wrote it into the kernel, and it was in the right stable kernel before 25 MAy 2005, they need not fear litigation. Anything which didn't make the magic deadline in the magic line of kernels still carries the same old fear of litigation it always did.

This is a free pass for some (but not all) hypothetical existing infringements in one GPL'd program. All infringements in any other GPL'd programs and all new infringements in the kernel are not covered by it.

My guess is that since Nokia couldn't find a good patent lawsuit against the kernel developers, they've contrived a great way to get some cheap PR from the current lack of meaningful infringement.

The fact that this is a concern in the first place is the basis for the outcries against software patents.

Preach on, brother MynockGuano! What a pity there's no one listening but the choir. You're right, but until your legislators hear it from names like IBM and Nokia, nothing's going to happen.

This can't be the whole truth

[jeti]

If the above claim was true, Nokia would gain nothing by the patent system. They'd just be sinking money so they can't be attacked.

Why then is Nokia agressively lobbying for software patents in Europe?

Patent Nuclear War (or Nookular War)

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this means....

I respectfully believe you are wrong.

Nokia wrote...

Nokia also believes that a party should not enjoy use of Nokia's patents and at the same time threaten the development of the Linux Kernel by assertion of its own patents. Therefore, Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party asserting its patents against any Linux Kernel.

Here is what I think it means.

Let's suppose there is some third party. Let's call this hypothetical party "Mega Monopol-O-Soft", or just MS for short.

Suppose MS sues Xyzzy because (1) Xyzzy uses Linux, and (2) Linux infringes on an MS patent. Therefore, Xyzzy is infringing an MS patent by Xyzzy's use of Linux.

"....Nokia's commitment shall not apply with regard to any party (i.e. MS in this hypothetical) asserting its patents (meaning MS patents) against any Linux Kernel." This means that MS shall not enjoy the use of Nokia's patents. If MS infringes a Nokia patent, Nokia is reserving the right to sue MS for infringement of the Nokia patent. It would not matter if MS is using Linux or not. Even if MS's infringement of Nokia's patent were as a direct result of MS using Linux, Nokia is reserving the right to sue over patent infringement.

I read this similar to Novel's promise to use their patent arsenel against anyone who asserts patents against open source.

I suspect IBM would sue someone over infringement of IBM patents (patents unrelated to Linux) if that someone asserted patents against Linux users, thus affecting the Linux kernel, and IBM's huge investment in Linux.

All it would take for us to see such a nuclear war would be for some hypothetical party (the hypothetical "MS" I used for example) to start the patent nuclear war against Linux.

Nokia is indeed up to something else...

[Alan Cox]

Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do.

Nor alas is this just PR spin to make them look good. Nokia is lobbying hard to get almost unlimited software patenting allowed in Europe. This press release is part of a game to fool the parliament into believing that open source is not threatened by patents and to make them feel more comfortable. Right now the Finnish MEP's in particular face difficult choices - Nokia is almost "Finland the company" and Linus is "Finland the rockstar" , and they say exactly the reverse about patents.

MOD PARENT UP!

[dabadab]

The parent post points out the hypocrisy in this statement: if all that Nokia wants is to be safe from patent lawsuits then it would be quite counterproductive to push for software patents in the EU - which is exactly what they are doing.
So, I do not really believe that they do not plan to use SW patents offensively.

Re:Good game Nokia!

[mickwd]

Aren't Nokia one of the major companies pressing for the legalisation of Software Patents in the EU ?

This would seem like a bit of PR aimed primarily at that process. They're trying to say to the EU politicians: "We (want | need | will-go-out-of-business-without) software patents, and we know you've had lots of complaints from the open-source crowd, but look, their little toy that is generating so much interest among you is safe from us. So if you can now please ignore the open-source crowd's complaints about Software Patents".

Property . . .

[Morosoph]

is not so simple. See my journal [slashdot.org].

In short, property is a positive right: reinforced exclusivity. I agree that Anarcho-Capitalists tend to lean upon natural law, but natural law doesn't tell you what one is, but rather (should it be a valid mode of analysis), what it should be. Ronald Coase wrote about this; brief analysis: property exists where the investment gains outweigh the costs of exclusivity (the thing in question cannot be readily put to its best use).

I have to say that hidden within your response is the attitude that I'm talking about (although you're not as extreme as those that I seek to criticise): if you can force a route via which contracts have to be signed, that does not mean that the contracts should be enforceable. Consider EULAs and reverse-engineering.

Frequently, EULAs will prevent people from being able to provide competition, especially if (say) every school provides use of standard tools, where the user has to agree to the EULA to learn to use the tools. They do this while learning to program. Luckily, we're in a position now where there are other routes, but bear with me: if this is the only route, then the only route by which competition can arise is through illegality. Someone provides rudimentary tools and circulates them via "pirate networks". Only once someone's development is exclusively using such tools can a legal alternative arise. Depending upon the sate of property law, learning on such illegally-derived tools might itself be illegal, of course, so it might take three 'generations' to escape the yoke.

Even if it 'only' takes two generations, the EULA has not delivered a good investment:exclusivity_cost ratio. The ratio might even be negative: facing no competition, little new investment is made into the product.

There are plenty of other examples (the most obvious one is 'voluntary' slavery), but signing contracts is not a good sole criterion.