19 Patents Given To GPL Community 138
Raph responded:
For now, I'm only intending for the grant to extend to the GPL. One particular hazard I want to avoid is a potential proprietary licensee for the patent simply creating a "libraphspatent.so" (or "RAPHPTNT.DLL") that's licensed under, say, the X license, and then linking to their proprietary code. That scenario neither compensates me for the patents nor does it particularly help the cause of free software.
That said, I'm not by any means a GPL bigot. I've released quite a bit of code under less restrictive licenses in cases where I've felt the use of the code is more important than the other goals the GPL promotes. I just didn't see a way to make this grant extend to these other licenses without creating a serious hazard. There are some other people working to create patent pools for the benefit of free software generally, and I'm happy to work with them in this direction.
The Advogato article has more details on the grant itself and discussion of the consequences.
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:1)
>This is just another example of people using "intellectual property"
>laws to restrict sharing, just as the GPL restricts sharing.
Thank Microsoft for this. You're going to be seeing more and more of this. After what the slimeballs at Microsoft did to Kerberos, you're going to see very few people release this kind of code under a BSD-type license anymore.
Other Licenses (Score:3)
OT: Z80 (Score:1)
how many people really speak Z80 any more?
Game Boy programmers, graphing calculator [ticalc.org] programmers, etc. Have you been to Zilog's Z80 Microprocessor page [zilog.com]?
Shorter... (Score:2)
How's that?
Plugins? (Score:2)
Which means it's illegal to release a GPL'd plugin for Winamp, right? Winamp plugins are DLLs, which are dynamically linked to the closed-source audio player. Or would Winamp be part of the "operating system" the plugin runs on under section 3 of the GNU GPL [gnu.org]?
What a PKB. (Score:2)
browse a few of the patent documents ... converted them to gifs
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; the compression behind GIF itself is patented. [burnallgifs.org] On the other hand, had you said PNG [libpng.org] images...
true (Score:1)
Thats me, althought why would I have to pay MS or apple, its the BSD license.
Re:Yohh Hooo. Vinoid. Where are you? (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:1)
>GPL can never be used in a commercial product
>So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name
>but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source"
>product, rather than "commercial". There is a
>difference.
Erm, and I must split the hair further.
Just a thought... (Score:1)
There are probably holes in my argument, but in any case I think someone should take a closer look at this patent license. Personally I would be much happier if he entered into a patent-sharing group, which would not only allow it to be used by anyone (GPL, BSD, and yes, commercial code) but would most likely introduce many new patents into public availability, which seems like it would help free software much more than just these patents on their own will (not to slam on his contribution, it was a very nice thing to do).
"Double standards" (Score:4)
My take on this is that software patents are still bad. But there's not a hell of a lot we can do about them at this point, since the big corporations can put a lot more money into keeping them (not to say we shouldn't TRY, but...). Since we can't stop software patents, we instead use patents against those companies.
As for the comment about publishing as prior art instead of patenting, i see two problems: First, the big corporations can use them as well, which is why Ralph Levien went the patent route. Second, we've seen before how often the USPTO grants patents even with the existance of prior art.
-----
Re:Amazingly, I have ONE reservation about this... (Score:2)
Patent licenses are interpreted according to state law. I have no idea what state's law applies here, so let's look at 'generic' law.
Licenses are usually contracts. A contract requires an offer and an acceptance, and 'consideration' by both parties. Here, the patentee isn't getting anything concrete, but he is getting a forbearance from the licensee. The problem I see is that the forbearance is not to violate the terms of the license, probably not consideration in most states.
Estoppel is still a doctrine that can apply. The Federal Circuit, the main court for interpreting patent law does have its own law regarding estoppel. All estoppel is premised not in the idea of contract law, but of equity. In patent cases, estoppel requires that the conduct of the patentee induce reasonable reliance in the accused infringer, to the detriment of that infringer. (For an important case in this area, see A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(en banc)). That would seem to fit here.
35 U.S.C. 285 also allows courts to assess the costs of litigation, including attorneys fees to the prevailing party in a patent case if the case is exceptional. Lacking an objectively reasonable basis can be a basis for finding a case exceptional.
#define DISCLAIMER
#ifdef DISCLAIMER
As with all things legal, YMMV, which means getting a legal opinion on your own circumstances from a qualified professional if you really have something on the line.
#endif
Re:The call to arms (Score:1)
Cerberus (Kerberos?) did not have 50 heads. Hydra, another mythical beast (actually Cerberus' "sister") had 50 snake-heads and even if you managed to cut one, it would grow back again soon. In the end Hercules killed the bitch
This is not good. (Score:1)
Patents on algorithms are wrong, unless they are licensed to everybody for free use as they see fit, especially with the lifetime of patents being effectively forever compared to the rate of progress in the computing industry.
--
So, who's writing code? (Score:1)
From the patent titles and troubles I've had in the past some of that there code would be dandy in Ghostscript, and as everybody has pointed out there are things in there that would be good in printer drivers. Is there anywhere registering people's intent to code these up?
--Baz
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:3)
I don't want to sound like I'm flaming, so read carefully.
That's not sharing--that's "helping yourself". Sharing is when I own something and I give it to you. Helping yourself is when I own something and you come and take it.
If the FreeBSD people want to use Linux drivers, they can ask the driver maintainer to share. The GPL puts no restrictions on the maintainer as to who he can share with. But FreeBSD people can't help themselves to GPL'd code. In the case of FreeBSD this is somewhat unfortunate, but it guards against the case of someone like Microsoft helping themselves.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Re:So, who's writing code? (Score:2)
GPL for Dummies? (Score:1)
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
These would be a good start in my understanding of GPL.
Re:Shorter... (Score:2)
Hear, hear! (Score:1)
Remember that recently Microsoft received a patent on software packaging systems. Ugh. Like that's not a case that SCREAMS prior art. *sighs*
Sorry to feed the troll (Score:1)
It's not GNU that patented these; it's an individual. Read next time, rather than pouring hot grits in your ears. Thank you.
Broader permissions (Score:1)
I am a GPL fan, but I still wish the owner of these patents would license them for free use by any program consisting entirely of free software (this, of course, includes all legal GPL'ed programs). That would still avoid giving a license to any program that contained any proprietary software, but would enable use in programs that are covered by the BSD copying conditions, Mozilla conditions, etc., but only in cases when they are not linked against proprietary software.
That said, I should disclose that I personally believe that the correct interpretation of current patent laws in the US (if only more courts would agree with me) is that software is not patentable. I also believe that software should not be patentable.
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:1)
By using my license terms, proprietary vendors will benefit as MUCH as the open source community - that is the portion of the open source community that is willing to accept my code with an unrestricted license, as opposed to a heavily restrictive license.
I can argue that my terms are no more restrictive than the GPL, in which (insert qualifier here) redistributed GPL application (there, happy?) community benefits infinitely more than then everyone else, where "everone else" includes not only proprietary vendors, but anyone using a different open source license, including the LGPL!
Contributors who entertain the "proprietary applications are evil" mindset will of course think twice - since I endorse "commercial" use (in the traditional meaning of the term), my license is inherently evil - I dare allow people to make real money!
On the other hand, for contributors who would like to share source code freely, and be able to use it in personal projects or in projects at work (where most of us professional programmers do the majority of our coding), these terms are perfect.
Look, this all boils down to commercial vs. non-commercial use. The GPL was _designed_ to virally convert software into effectively non-commercial works, under the guise of protecting programmers from being taken advantage of by evil corporations. While this is a real problem, I think the cure is worse than the disease.
Not all corporations are evil. And some of us code for a living at companies who require their software divisions to cover their own expenses plus a reasonable margin. We would like to use open source code, and are perfectly happy to contribute back to the community. Well, unless we're willing to release code just to have a public fork created that we cannot use, the GPL is unacceptable.
Licenses like the BSD allow us to use and share code for use at home or at work. All "proprietary applications are evil" rhetoric aside, I don't think there is anything wrong with this.
GPL defenders need to spend more time justifying their license for what it is, instead of deflecting criticism through semantics or rhetoric.
Rock On! (Score:2)
There's some good discussion on the GPL/patent issues at the advogato link, so go read that before posting here.
Jules
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:1)
No, he isn't invoking someone else's name. Instead he's invoking the word "freedom", but in reality he means something only tangentally related to freedom.
How is this hypocrisy? The FSF does not promote software that is unrestricted.
Then they should stop using the term "Free Software". If the FSF cares about freedom, then the only patents that should be allowed in GPLed software would be completely unrestricted ones. Patents are intrinsically anti-freedom, unless they are freely licensed to everyone.
This is about power and the freedom that comes from having power, not about pacifism.
Oh yes, freedom for RMS. But what about the rest of us who can't live off of donations?
Why pretend that the GPL doesn't represent a political agenda. It does. If you can't or won't live with it, you still have the Microsoft option.
If you can only see the two extremes, then you've probably been brainwashd by one of them.
I hate software patents. I don't have any problems with copyright though. I believe creators should be able to do what they want with what they create. Copyright is consistent with that, but patents are totally counter to it.
The more I look, the more evidence I see that RMS doesn't give a damn about anyone's freedom but his own.
ESR has the halloween docs. (Score:1)
http://www.opensource.org/halloween [opensource.org]
The call to arms (Score:2)
The last few months have seen arrogant corporations sitting on patents and blocking progress and interoperability, all on the lie of "we have to protect our IP interests"
OSS has always lead by example, and this is a particularly good message to send to the US Patent Office - if people are voluntarily giving away these "business critical rights" then that's more fuel for the patent reform campaigners.
The OSS & other development online communities normally play straight and fair, and gets shafted (like the recent 50 headed guardian dog of Hades debacle). This is a clear message that the OSS is beginning to fight back on corporate territory.
I salute this action, and recommend that the OSS begin putting into place procedures that protect algorithms and source from the corporate raiders.
Enough playing nice!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:Another Victory! (Score:1)
Nonrevokable Grant (Score:1)
Now, suppose people write code based on this patents and the owner decides to revoke the GPL-use license. Fine, we can't write new code based on that patent any longer. But what happens to GPL code already written? So one can't use the algorithm but can re-use the code? Doesn't make sense.
The language "fully paid up" in the patent grant at http://www.levien.com/patents.html [levien.com], and the fact that document is called a grant [978.org] indicate that it is a non-revokable conveyance of rights. While I find software patents in general to be execrable, a grant like this allows patent holders to do right for the public benefit while putting themself at minimal disadvantage to proprietary competitors. Until we get widespread patent reform, we can only hope for more grants like this one.
Re:it's not really bruce (Score:1)
Whole OSS community? (Score:1)
This is only useful to the GPL loving community.
This is just another example of people using "intellectual property" laws to restrict sharing, just as the GPL restricts sharing.
Interview please to discuss uses of patents... (Score:2)
Consider the Eyeglasses with spectral color shift [ibm.com] which while very interesting eldue me as far as practical applications go.
You have to enforce a patent... (Score:1)
What happens when someone writes a piece of proprietary software using an algorithm described in one of these patents? Will you sue to enforce the position?
If the answer is yes, then you're just as guilty as the big bad corporations of stifling competition in the industry by using the terribly confused patent office to restrict the use of mathematical algorithms in developing products.(I'm not terribly familiar with the patents in question, but mostly they look like signal processing algorithms, and to my mind that means they are just mathematics.)
If the answer is no, then you should ask your lawyers if the patent will hold it's value. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you have to enforce a patent against all violators for it to continue to be valid.
Software patents are all around bad. Software is just an extension of discrete mathematics, and mathematics were never intended to be patentable.
IMHO, the best thing for people who want freedom to do is to publish their algorithms so that someone else can't come along and patent it later. Prior art databases are a noble cause.
If you want to force people to put their software under GPL, then you might be on the right track. I question the morality of that though. Forcing people to use your definition of freedom (even though it is a pretty good one, and better than most), isn't as free as it could be.
patents are bad (Score:1)
However, for patents, the GPL seems to go against my very beliefs of freedom. People should be allowed to implement any algorithm and use it for any project (commercial or Open Source). That seems more important to me than anything in the Open Source philosophy. Patenting things under the GPL license violates that freedom.
The stupid lameness filter won't let you use == in a subject... It seems like that should be fixed (at least for a site like this)
Anyone got better documentation than the tifs (Score:1)
could someone drop a link in when they've downloaded them and converted them to gifs or something.
Re:GPL for Dummies? (Score:2)
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
Sure. There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits people from profiting.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL? :)
Yes - that's the point of the GPL
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, and as evidenced in that Nvidia scandal, while you can't take rights away from people once you've given them away, you can give them more. So if you want to alter the code some and rerelease a binary-only version, you have the right to relicense your code and do just that.
Re:GPL for Dummies? (Score:1)
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
Yes. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from using the software in a commercial application. It only states that you must release the source code to any entity to whom you distribute your software.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
I don't believe this is clearly defined in the license. I also don't think you could ever prove that the "one line" was actually from your GPL code. Generally, I hear people discuss contributions of 20 lines of code or more being considered enforceable.
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes. So do all entities to whom you distribute your software, however. You are free to do whatever you want with the software, including forking a closed source, non free, version. All those who have a copy of the GPL version are still free to continue use and development of that software as well.
A Foolish Inconsistency (Score:2)
We've seen rant after rant against software patents on slashdot since time began. Now we have a case where software patents are being assigned specifically for use by GPL licensees. Some people might believe this is a good thing. Bruce Perens seems to imply from his statement elsewhere that software patents are at least compatible with the idea behind the GPL.
The problem is, they are mistaken.
The League for Programming Freedom's opinion in 1991 was that overall software patents do far more harm than good. They did not seek to differentiate between patents that were held by large companies, by individuals, or by organizations. Software patents place a burden on the authors of software of all kinds to ensure that their patents are licensed properly. This makes software more difficult to write and stifles innovation merely to give patent lawyers something to do.
If you have an innovative software idea that you wish to give people, publish it. Establish prior art so companies can't establish a patent later. That's the best you can do, and promotes the freedom of ideas that the GPL is supposed to promote far better than the GPL itself does.
Re:GPL for Dummies? (Score:1)
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
You probably already do :). For example Perl is released under a both the Artistic License and the GPL. If you are using Perl then you are already using GPLed software.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL doesn't in any way prohibit how you USE GPLed software. It merely prohibits distributing the software without including source code.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
Actually this question is misleading. If you include GPLed source in your code, or if you even link to GPLed libraries then you need to release the source code to your software if you choose to distribute binaries. Whether you have to release source because you include one line probably depends on what is on that line. If you were to reformat the source to gcc so that it was exactly one line long (a really long line), and included that in your program then you would probably have to release your source code (not that anyone would probably want it :). If you "borrowed" the line:
int foo;
then I doubt that the FSF lawyers are going to come after you.
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, you do. In fact you can even change the licensing terms on future incarnations of your software.
The FSF routinely asks that contributions of new GPL software (and contributions of existing GNU software) be accompanied by a document passing copyright ownership to the FSF. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, requires that all contributors keep their copyrights.
In other words this area is covered by normal copyright law. There are some accepted norms for participating in the various GPL communities, but if you are writing your own program then the rules are probably up to you.
Re:What a PKB. (Score:1)
If I'd said LZW compressed gif's
Uncompressed, unencumbered gifs will do just fine
(will this do?)
Changing the License (Score:1)
--
This is not freedom (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:1)
I think that the plethora of available licensing schemes provides more freedom for programmers; anyway nobody is forced to release anything under the GPL unless he's basing his work on GPL'd code to start with.
I am slightly in favor of the BSD scheme vs. the GPL one, but I basically think each programmer should decide for herself.
Following my istinct I would release my code under the public domain, or with no restriction whatsoever: but I've seen code released like this being stolen and copyrighted by somebody else, leaving the original author with no rights to it; that's why licensing schemes such as GPL, BSD or Artistic exist in the first place.
>As the VC community realizes there is little to no money to be made in GPL software, the spigot will close.
I doubt it. It has been around quite a while, and it is expanding.
>as in freedom, as opposed to socialism
You might not realize it, but this is quite an inflamatory remark (to Western European ears, at least). Be more careful. [I, FWIW, happen to hold the exact opposite point of view]
--
The free world (Score:1)
__
Re:Shorter... (Score:1)
It says you CAN change the licence, but if its not
a free software licence, then you must work out
a special patent licence.
Re:Plugins? (Score:1)
I think that you would have a hard time convincing Microsoft that Winamp is part of the operating system :).
Besides there is another license written by the FSF that is specifically targetted at this sort of application. It is the LGPL (for Lesser GPL) and it permits dynamic linking. The beautty is that if anyone makes modifications to your library and distributes them they will still be required to share the source code. This allows you to protect your investment in the library. On the other hand anyone will be free to link to your library from closed source projects (like Winamp).
If you are really interested in getting a handle on this particular issue (and being able to intelligently participate in License War Discussions is worth the price of entry) I would suggest reading the excellent article that Bruce Perens wrote about the Open Source Definition. Especially germane is the section titled "Analysis of Licenses and their Open Source Compliance." You can find it here [perens.com].
Take care
Re:Other Licenses (Score:1)
You couldn't have used these patents before at all, so how are you hurting if their owner wants to allow their free use in GPL-protected software? Getting your feathers in a ruffle about it and calling for a holy war against the GPL won't help anyone.
Besides, you pointed out the key - the GPL isn't about open source, it's about free software. I suppose it is anti-competitive to keep patented technology from becoming part of a closed-source, non-free product via the BSDL or its cousins, but it's anti-competitive in favor of the consumer, not the corporation.
You face a real practical problem in allowing patents for BSDL-style licensing - how do you keep Microsoft or AOL or some other Big Company(TM) from using your patented technology in their ClosedSource2000(TM) product?
Anonymous postings (Score:1)
Come forward and post as yourself, you blissoming anile beldam, and stop irrumating up yourself.
You're just the sort of person Spooner would have called a 'shining wit'.
Someone please explain (Score:2)
Regards,
January
Re:Just a thought... (Score:1)
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:1)
> which I personally use) use "intellectual
> property" laws to place restrictions on the use
> of the software.
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws,
there are, by default, restrictions on use of the
software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the
laws defaults.
The question is this....do you believe that the
people who use software have the RIGHT
(irregardless of local law) to see how software
works, modify it for their use, and distribute
it to others who need it? (further, do you believe
that a person who is purchasing a cereal or soda,
has the right to know what is actaully in the
food they buy?)
Those, like Mr Stallman (and myself) who believe
in such a right, argue that the GPL is NOT
restricting the rights of those who would
distribute prioprietary software, but protecting
the rights of the public to know what is in their
software by not aiding those who would
try to take away that freedom.
> Richard Stallman attempts to claim the side of
> "freedom" against "slavery", but to me, the
> minute he began using the laws he compares with
> slavery, he lost any "moral" high ground.
Well, thats your judgement and you are free to
make it. I don't see a conflict here. If you found
a way to "Free Slaves" within the constraints of
slavery laws, would you not do it, simply because
it is "Using the bad laws"? Sure its best to work
to change bad, immoral laws, but in the mean time
you have to work within them.
> I just hate it when people act like the GPL is
> the epitome of sharing, when it's the GPL that
> usually ends up being very hard to be compatible
> with.
Yes, it is unfortunate that the GPL is very hard
to be compatible with. However, it is designed,
from the very start, to provide STRONG protection
for peoples rights to the software.
Like many things designed to provide strong
protection of anything, it is a pain in the
ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in
strong passphrases.
Re:The call to arms (Score:1)
But why are we arguing about exactly what mythical creatures looked like? If I ever see them, I'll let you know, OK?
So, anyone want to make comparisons between Hercules, Jesus, or Bacchus? Half a god is better than none, that's what I always say....
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Redundancy (Score:1)
I was the third (I think) post on that article, and the other two hadn't been posted by the time I was there, so how can my article be redundant? You just want to lower my karma don't you.
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:1)
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws, there are, by default, restrictions on use of the software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the laws defaults.
Well, not quite. Current law does provide for works to be placed in the public domain. Certainly works in the public domain are the most free, as there are no restrictions on them at all!
So what if somebody can make a closed version based on it? The benefits to open software, maintained by a community, are greater than any one company can provide. It's not like the release of a closed deriviative of open software removes the open software from the market! Is Mac OS X really any danger to FreeBSD?
Like many things designed to provide strong protection of anything, it is a pain in the ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in strong passphrases.
Do you realize the irony in that statement? You claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you compare it with cryptographic systems designed to limit access!
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:2)
When I release software with an LGPL license, I'm not just freely sharing with everyone. I'm making it available under a specific set of circumstances.
I am making an active effort *not* to share with everybody! If my AIM client were in the public domain, AOL could very well snatch it, and sell it!
You say that the FreeBSD people can ask the driver maintainers to share. That implies that the drivers aren't currently being shared! QED.
Re:Please stop using the word free with GPL (Score:1)
Re:Rock On! (Score:1)
The point of free software is freedom, to promote and incourage innovation, and to respect the rights of the user. Enforced patents, in anyone's hands, work against that very basic concept of freedom. The gesture is nice, but it stands against free software. In the interests of freedom and fairness, open up the patents to all Licenses!
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:2)
Another "meta-restriction" which I think would serve freedom far more effectively, would be to create a new "Public Patent License". PPL patents would be usable by anyone, as long as they made all of their patents (past and future) also PPL. In some ways this is a stronger restriction than the "GPL only patents", because it forces the users of the patent to open all of their patents, not just the source to the one program that uses the patent. It's a far less onerous restriction though, because it's using patents to fight patents, not patents to fight everyone who doesn't use GPL.
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:1)
I actually am a PHB in a small company. We've tried (and spent money) on some products. They suck. There's no standards. Etc. We want a product that will work for us. I've started talking with sourcexchange. We need to pick a license. We have no desire to sell software. What would work better for us (and society) would be to have this be the dominant app in that particular niche. I've met the assholes who run the companies that make the closed source crap. I don't want my money funding their company or their product. The little bit of limelight from a BSD product doesn't help. I don't want to bring the product back in house (and likely can't, as it seems that my company would hold joint rights with the programmer(s)) so why bother with the Mozilla, Novell, etc. licenses?
Unfortunately, even the PHB has his own PHB's to answer to, as well as lawyers. But again, thanks for the comments.
(Yup, -1 offtopic, but I needed to say thank you. BTW, the thank you extends to everyone in the thread. This just looked like the best place in the thread to say thanks. Oh, and if you want any more details about the particular project: ghowell@@NOSPAMolg.com)
Re:Anonymous postings (Score:1)
"To be criticised is not always to be wrong."
Re:A Foolish Inconsistency (Score:1)
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:1)
Exactly my point. And since the giver is also the person who chose the license, the GPL doesn't "restrict sharing".
Maybe you'd like to amend your previous statement?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Now GNU can make trippy sunglasses! (Score:1)
A first optical filter, worn over the left eye is provided having a spectral response containing three peaks; one for each of red, green, and blue, tuned to the maximum responsiveness of the human eye to red, green, and blue colors. A second optical filter, worn over the right eye, is similar to the left optical filter, but with the peaks tuned to complementary portions of the visual spectrum. In this manner, a dimension of color perception is added, because each eye sees different colors for the same object which when combined represent the actual color of the object. "
Now the GNU can distribute these at all of their concerts for the big finale!
Yeeah!
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
Seems a little silly to worry about that... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, there are plenty of documented tricks for wrapping GPL'd software inside non-GPL'd software "safely"; see Tom C.'s "condom" library for an example of how you can do it.
It comes down to this: If you give something away enough that people can use it effectively, they will probably find a way to use it without sharing if that's really important to them. It doesn't matter; your code is still free.
Dual purpose patents? (Score:1)
Re:Another Victory! (Score:1)
Re:Amazingly, I have ONE reservation about this... (Score:1)
There's one point I'd like to bring up here; Raph specifies
I'm not actually sure how this could be handled; any solution I can think of would either leave open the possibility of the GPL being changed at some future time to a more restrictive license and the patent therefore being usable only for software under that license (this is if you change the wording to read "...under the latest version of the GNU General Public License"), or wouldn't solve the problem anyway (this is if you change it to read "...under version 2, or at the user's choice, any later version, of the GNU General Public License...", which, if I recall correctly, is the standard wording for most GPL'd software).
Anybody got any better ideas?
Re:You have to enforce a patent... (Score:1)
This isn't true. You are thinking of trademark law, in which case the owner of a trademark does have to actively defend it or else may risk losing it.
(this is to prevent people from trademarking every word in the English language and claiming that they "own" it, even though they never use it)
Raph can use his patents in "self-defense", that is, if he writes a program and later finds out that he infringed someone else's patent, he can offer licensing them as a trade, instead of being sued.
The rest of us are SOL, unfortunately.
> IMHO, the best thing for people who want freedom to do is to publish their algorithms so that
> someone else can't come along and patent it later.
Practically this doesn't work. Most software patents are probably invalid due to prior art, but they still seem to be enforced anyway.
What does a US patent cost, anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:5)
Either way, some clarification is in order.
GPL can never be used in a commercial product
So what are Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera, to name but a few? Perhaps you meant "closed source" product, rather than "commercial". There is a difference.
GPL code can never be used in any application that is not also 100% GPL code
Not quite correct. It can be used in any non-GPL'd application that is not distributed. There's a lot of software development done entirely for in-house use. The GPL might technically apply to these if they use GPL'd source, but in practise it never applies if the application is never distributed to anyone else.
Finally, any mods made to GPL code must be made public - you must post the source, or provide it on request.
Same error as above. If I never post (or otherwise distribute) the binaries of mods I make to GPL'd code, I need never post the sources, either, and I can tell anybody asking for them to buzz off.
BSD can be used by anybody, for anything.
True. Some people, though, regard this as a serious flaw. Microsoft (among others) has made a lot of money off of BSD'd code, with no particular benefit to the rest of the developer community.
The proponents of GPL feel that imposing a non-commercial business model is the best way to keep software "free"
Cart before the horse. The GPL doesn't impose a non-commercial business model, although it does tend to (as a byproduct, via free market forces) enforce an upper limit on "what the market will bear" for the software.
Proponents of BSD feel it is the only "free" license, as it doesn't require you to become a non-profit to use the code
Neither does the GPL.
you can integrate it [BSD code] into proprietary [closed source] apps
This is certainly an advantage for those that want to take proprietary advantage of code somebody else has written. It's hard to see how this is an advantage to the authors of such code, unless they're happy just knowing that some of their code is buried in a Microsoft or Apple program somewhere, one that they can't even use unless they pay Microsoft or Apple for the privilege. Still, it seems that there are such folks out there.
Personally, I think that corporate subsidized BSD-type development WILL easily surpass GPL's contributions - as more and more corporations realize the value of releasing open source.
To date this doesn't seem to be the case. Most corporate developed software that has been open sourced has been released under some license that is far more restrictive than BSD.
Some corps release their work as GPL to prevent competitors from being able to benefit from it,
Not quite. The competitors may certainly benefit from it, since they may freely use it. However, the competitors won't benefit any more than the original authors, since they (competitors) can't incorporate the GPL'd source into their own closed product, or if they do incorporate the GPL'd code, they must then open up their own extensions such that the original company also has access. (Effectively levelling the playing field for all involved.)
Of course, there are problems using BSD code in GPL applications, as GPL demands that the code become GPL. In most of these cases, the BSD authors have allowed GPL forks of the code.
In most cases the BSD authors have no control over whether their code goes into GPL'd applications. So long as the BSD license doesn't place any restrictions on the code that the GPL doesn't (and in some cases where there's an advertising or author-acknowledgement clause, it might), the GPL "infects" any BSD-ish (or public domain, for that matter) code that gets rolled in to a GPL'd application. (Of course, the originalBSD or PD code is available outside the GPL). BSD authors shouldn't be particularly upset about this -- the license allows their code to be incorporated into totally closed and proprietary applications, too.
n the end, I think corporate subsidized BSD has to win. It actually has financial backing, so programmers can earn a paycheck for their work, instead of working as a waiter to subsidize your coding as one of the GPL authors recommended.
Hey, everyone should have a hobby. More seriously, whichcorporate subsidized BSD? Apple? Meanwhile, there are plenty of places (Red Hat, for example) paying programmers to write GPL'd code.
Re:it makes the GPL the law of the land (Score:1)
Hmm... by force of government, do you mean copyright? Oh, wait...
~luge
it's not really bruce (Score:1)
Re:Good for the GPL (Score:2)
What is interesting is what happens if lots of people were to GPL license their patents. In effect, the "GPL pool" would function as a vast cross-licensing arrangement, giving GPL authors vast resources not available to proprietary software companies.
An interesting situation would arise if more people decided to license their patents for GPL projects only. If enough key patents were to be restricted to this terms, such as patents on new audio/video codecs, it could make proprietary operating systems, for all practical purposes, illegal to use.
Make no mistake, the fight of proprietary vs free software is a fight to the death. As Microsoft has proved with their kerberos "trade secrets", the two cannot live in harmony.
Re:What a PKB. (Score:2)
Uncompressed, unencumbered gifs will do just fine
But you also wrote [slashdot.org]: the tifs take an age to download
If the GIF files were uncompressed, they would take just as long as (or longer than) the TIFF files.
Switch to PNG [libpng.org].Lesser GPL? (Score:2)
The beautty is that if anyone makes modifications to your library and distributes them they will still be required to share the source code.
LGPL (in full, GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1) is a "lesser copyleft" license like NPL, which means that you can add closed-source modules to the code by simply writing them as separate .c files. But I still believe that Winamp is the operating system to which Winamp plugins are written; an operating system doesn't always mean "kernel and filesystem right on top of the bare hardware." It's anything that exposes a full set of APIs.
Re:Other Licenses (Score:2)
Re:patent pools (Score:1)
GPL only patents won't help in this situation either.
Re:What a PKB. (Score:1)
i wish i'd never started this now
I know all that
OKOK has anyone OCR'd the tif's and coverted the raw text (maybe formatted) to html (or other suitable text format) and included the graphics as PNG's (or other suitable image file format) so I can read the damn patents to see if I can write any software based on the knowledge within them (in a suitable programming language). I am particularly interested in dithering the RGB channels (or other suitable channels) for intertsting visual effect (or some other suitable sense)
will this do?
Re:OT: Z80 (Score:1)
Re:Just a thought... (Score:2)
In order for your 'product' to qualify as 'gpl'd software', you have to TELL me it's GPL'd.
If it's GPL'd, you are *required* to give me source. Period.
You can't simply 'not copyright' something.
To put it differntly, if copyright is released, and it goes public domain, you *can't* make it GPL, as you no longer have the rights to assign license to it.
Re:Changing the License (Score:2)
He's granting a license to use his patents when the software using the patent is licensed under GPL.
As for changing a license.. if I write code, license it under GPL, and distribute it, I cannot 'revoke' that license.
i can, however, license it under whatever other terms I want, so if I want to fork off a proprietary closed version, I am free to. It is *MY* Code.
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:1)
The person applying the GPL to a piece of code, is making the deliberate choice not to share with all parts of the free software community.
I see no reason to amend that statement.
Don't argue with him... (Score:1)
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:4)
So what do you call it when someone independently develops a piece of software, licenses it under something other than GPL, and is then told "sorry, there's a GPL patent on that algorithm you use". This is the problem with patents. If someone were to go and develop the same thing completely independently, then they're still restricted. This is why patents are evil, because they restrict us without us even knowing about them. (the same isn't true of copyright, since you can't infringe upon a copyrighted work without knowing of its existance)
If members of the free software movement start using patents to fight proprietary software, then they're really no better than people in the crusades who "killed for Christ".
I have no problem with GPL software. I'm writing software right now that I intend to release under GPL. But I believe software patents are wrong, no matter who is using them. For the FSF to condone software patents that are restricted in any way is the epitome of hypocrisy.
And this would definitely put a huge hole in the argument that GPL isn't any stronger than copyright. Copyright allows clean room reimplementation, patents do not.
Re:Dual purpose patents? (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure how the Trippy Sunglasses patent can be implemented in software, or whether you can do it in hardware with the Gnu Public License small print on the earpieces
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:2)
(And as you can see at the www.openpatents.org site, Raph does seem to be open to considering something like the OPL once it's stable.)
Re:it makes the GPL the law of the land (Score:2)
Why not? The GPL utilizes the force of the government in the form of copyright. If not for that, it would be unenforceable. This just gives it more teeth. Also, in your scenario, the FSF couldn't sue you for patent infringement (it's not their patent), but the patent holder could. No amount of circumventing the copyright (i.e. the GPL'ed code) can negate the fact that your hypothetical BSD code infringes on his patent.
Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? BSD-style licenses allow proprietary derivatives to be made (like Kerberos!!). The patent license does not. Nor does the GPL. If the patent license were extended to all "open source" software, then placing it under the BSD license would be just as restrictive as the GPL, which would remove the whole point of doing it in the first place!
Unless, that is, you wanted commercial derivatives to be available when the patent expired. At which point Microsoft [or the largest surviving fragment thereof] sues your favorite website for keeping posts of their versions of your BSD-style source code.
These 19 patents certainly don't hurt for open source. And I don't mean to disparage BSD licenses entirely, since many such projects get quickly "embraced" by business (TCP/IP, Apache, ummm... Kerberos), but when they get "extended" you're powerless.
Re:"Double standards" (Score:2)
does it suck? yes. is it neccesary? sadly, yes.
we do not exist in a vaccuum, your argument ignores that simple fact.
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:2)
The original poster is correct -- by default all works are copyrighted by the author, who can choose to explicitly place them in the public domain.
Amazingly, I have ONE reservation about this... (Score:3)
The license to these patents reads thusly:
Here's my worry (and no, it's not because I don't trust Levien in particular, I'm just paranoid in general): it's very likely that the source can't be made hidden under the GPL; but under the above paragraph, could it still be possible for the Inventor to revoke the license on these patents and then demand royalties from anyone who uses them? Since I am not certain about patent law, and I don't see the word irrevocable included in the above patent license, I am left wondering.
Could a patent lawyer shed light on this? Thanks.
The Second Amendment Sisters [sas-aim.org]
GPL restricts sharing? (Score:2)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Good for the GPL (Score:3)
Don't fight the system
There's a SLIGHT potential problem... (Score:4)
I could be wrong; this is only in the preamble, rather than the body of the license proper (in fact, because of this, I am probably wrong). But it's something to think about. This does run somewhat counter to the GPL's philosophy, and that's not something which should just be ignored.
However, I do see what the patent holder is trying to do here. And I think it's good that finally we have some patents usable only in Open-Source software. I would make it so that the code is usable to anyone so long as the code was under any license which meets the OSD, but this is a good start.
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:2)
> based on it? The benefits to open software,
> maintained by a community, are greater than any
> one company can provide.
Its a matter of your point of view. As I said
above, it DOES matter if you believe that people
who use software have the RIGHT to do what the
GPL allows them to do (ie, they have those
rights regardless of the GPL, its just that the
current day society does not recognize these
rights)
From that viewpoint, allowing people to use the
software in non-free software programs is sitting
back and allowing them to screw the public out of
what is there right.
ie. Its saying, "If you want to write closed
software, I can't stop you - but I will NOT help
you".
> Do you realize the irony in that statement? You
> claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you
> compare it with cryptographic systems designed
> to limit access!
It is somewhat ironic...but not incorrect. The
GPL is designed to protect what some (like myself)
believe is the rights of the people. Strong
cryptographic software does the same, but in
different ways (by keeping out intruders who have
no right to the system or the information in it...
ie private data)
Different types of protection for different
things.
Re:Whole OSS community? (Score:2)
What right? The previous poster came with the example of FreeBSD and MacOS X. What right was taken away from the public because Apple created MacOS X? The right to FreeBSD? No, that's still available. The right to MacOS X? Where would the rights of the public come from? Would the public also had had the rights to that OS if Apple would not have written MacOS X?
-- Abigail
Re:GPL restricts sharing? (Score:2)
If one really wanted to be fully open, one would not claim copyright at all, or would use a BSD-like license.
GPL has motivations other than sharing, though. The GPL was written to share with like-minded individuals, and to keep others from using it.
The GPL is one facet of a war against closed software, not merely a tool to allow sharing.
Re:Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:2)
Start with the X and BSD licenses. They're very short, and simple.
Then read the GPL. It's quite a bit longer, but that's partially because of the preamble. Skip it; it's not *that* important. If you want an understanding of why the GPL exists, you'd probably be better served to read in depth at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Find the X license at http://www.x.org/xlicense.htm
Find the BSD license at http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html
Note that the advertising clause (requiring that any advertising credit the UC Regents) has been removed by the UC Regents.
Find the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Re:Another Victory! (Score:2)
Agreed. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a coherent implementation of Mutual Defense Against Software Patents [mit.edu]. Fight copyright with copyleft. Fight patents with mutual defense.
Perhaps Simple BSD vs. GPL vs. ETC licenses (Score:2)
I'm looking at doing something with sourcexchange, and need to have a bit more info on the licenses first. (Yes, I could read the licenses, but given the nature of them, someone must have a reasonable analysis of them somewhere already.)
Not a problem (Score:5)
Thanks
Bruce