Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

RTLinux Patents: Issue Closed? 121

Posted by timothy from the getting-along-dammit dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "LinuxDevices.com reports that the Free Software Foundation has reached an agreement with Victor Yodaiken which resolves what FSF considered to be a violation of GPL by the Open RTLinux Patent License. Details are not yet available, but it sounds like the clause in the license which required users of RTLinux to keep records and provide them to FSMLabs on demand was the principal source of the violation, and that the requirement is being dropped from an updated version of the RTLinux license that will be published in the next day or two. All in all, it seems like the FSF has successfuly enforced the GPL even though it was neither an owner nor co-owner of the software (i.e. the linux kernel) whose license terms were being violated. It's interesting to see this practical example of FSF in action, and bodes well for the future of GPL -- at least in a small way."

crimoid points to ZDNet coverage of the FSF's criticism of RTLinux's licensing terms, written before such a resolution was clear. Sourceforge on Thursday quoted RTLinux CEO Victor Yodaiken, CEO as saying that his company is happy to change "minor problems" with the RTLinux license, and that discussions are still going on with the FSF about those changes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RTLinux Patents: Issue Closed? More

RTLinux Patents: Issue Closed?

Comments Filter:
  • Couldn't anyone be considered a "co-owner"?
    • "Owner" as in owner of the copyright. Contrary to popular opinion, Linux and other GPL software is actually copyrighted. The GPL is essentially a EULA, and has no legal force unless the program it is included with is copyrighted. Since the FSF did not write the Linux kernel, they have no copyright on it and therefore no legal rights to it, so their power is limited in this matter. Presumaby Linus Torvalds holds the Linux copyright, but I really don't know. Probably it's co-owned by several people, but it does *not* include everyone who's ever submitted a patch.
      • Unless they have signed over their copyrights (to Linus), any submitter of a patch of significant size (a patch having a work status) is a co-owner. But, IANAL. I don't know if any employee of FSF have submitted any patches of significant size, but it's not impossible.

      • Contrary to popular opinion, Linux and other GPL software is actually copyrighted. The GPL is essentially a EULA, [ ... ]

        Actually, that's not precisely correct, either. The GPL is definitely not a EULA. Whereas most software "licenses" purport to place conditions on how you may use the software, the GPL places conditions on how you may copy and redistribute the software. This is a subtle but important difference.

        Schwab

    • The asertion was made that this outcome bodes well for the future of the GPL. I'm not sure if I see that. No legal prescident was set here; only more evidence of the FSF's ability to bully people into bending to their will. Don't get me wrong, I believe the FSF was right in this case, in insisting on the changes that were mand, but as a matter of law, a third party still has no standing in a license negotiation, and that's probably a good thing - as a matter of law

      --CTH

  • I don't see it that way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _Mustang ( 96904 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:08PM (#2311857)
    It's interesting to see this practical example of FSF in action, and bodes well for the future of GPL -- at least in a small way."

    How do you figure? The supposed breach involved someone who is a part of the community. Presumably he shares at least some of the same views as those espoused within the GPL. That means it was a fairly good bet that he would deal with this (in an amicable manner) once it became apparent that he had violated the GPL terms.

    Surely a much better test would involve people/companies who don't share the linux view of the world but who wish to leverage the codebase for their own gain..
    • Surely a much better test would involve people/companies who don't share the linux view of the world but who wish to leverage the codebase for their own gain..

      Yes, but the more the FSF and GPL are seen as enforceable in a business content (even if the 'business' who agrees to abide by the GPL is one of 'us') the more bigger business who isn't one of 'us' will see it as not worth taking on the FSF and GPL.

      Especially if there are a legion of rabid slashdotters ready to take on the eveil bad-guys.

      Go my unholy army of the night...

    • but this helps set a precedent. Too bad it's not in the legal sense. What we really need is a test case, to find some business that violated the GPL and take them to court over a big, intentional GPL violation where they'll attack the integrity of the GPL. If it survives the court case, we're in good shape and makes it likely that companies will think twice before they violate the GPL.

      For some strange reason I have an urge to dig through code from a certain company [microsoft.com].

      F-bacher

  • No legal precedent (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's interesting that the GPL and Stallman's way of dealing with violations does not establish legal precedents, since it's all solved out of the courts.

    I wonder how much tech lawyers must hate this kind of behavior. It means less money in their pockets if everyone starts using the GPL. We may after all be headed to a better world.

  • So.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    FSF succeeded to turn on legions of mindless GNUtroids to jihad against RTLinux with the use of 'patent'-curseword in a case that was just a disagreement over details in the patent license. Do note, that the RTLinux policy of licensing the patent freely only to GPL software and collecting cash from proprietary code makers continues unaffected and FSF has no problems with it.

  • Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrcparker ( 469158 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:15PM (#2311909)
    .. it really has nothing to do with the future of the GPL. It would be different if RTLinux decided that they did not want to work with the GPL while using GPL'ed software.

    This is a company who made an honest mistake and did what they could to fix it. Really, a non-issue. They probably has no clue that they were violating the GPL.
  • 6. You will keep complete and accurate records of all commercial uses of the Patented Process and all commercial distributions of the Patented Process whether that distribution occurs directly or as part of your products or services. You will also provide copies of all such records upon request from Licensor.

  • I still don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zwack ( 27039 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:19PM (#2311935) Homepage Journal
    Why this is called RTLinux. It's a real-time OS that is very lightweight that can run Linux or NetBSD as a pre-emptible process.

    Isn't this an infringement of the Linux trademark?

    Won't Linus lose the rights to the trademark if he doesn't follow this one up?

    • Re:I still don't understand... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Isn't this an infringement of the Linux trademark?

      No, because this project is called "RTLinux" and not "Linux". You can't easily get confused between the two.

    • Two guesses:

      • Linus may already be allowing them to use the term "RTLinux". Some companies allow others to use their trademarked terms in certain circumstances. This does not dilute the trademark.

      • I don't think Linus has to worry about the term "Linux" being diluted. RTLinux is based on Linux and is under the GPL, so it's not like Linux is being used as a term to describe any operating system.

  • The FSF are a bunch of real smart people (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:21PM (#2311952)
    The bottom of the problem is that Victor should never ever have been granted a patent for RTlinux : there is plenty of prior art (DR-Multiuser-DOS, Concurrent DOS and even the current DR-DOS multitasker have been around for 15+ years and use the exact same technique). Moreover, Victor didn't "invent" all of RTlinux, his students did.

    Considering that the patent is easily breakable in court, the FSF settled with Victor very easily. Why ? because RTlinux is irrelevant : RTAI [rtai.org] is the way to go now. It provides all that RTlinux provides and much more, and it isn't encumbered by silly patents.

    All in all, a much better move than it first appears by the FSF : they win on the PR front by making Victor change his license and they save money by not contesting a patent that isn't important anymore. Way to go guys !

  • A Win-Win Result (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:23PM (#2311957) Homepage Journal
    The GPL requires patents embedded in GPL code to be available for everyone's free use. This can be implemented by making the patents available for use in GPL programs. Victor thought he was already doing this, what happened here is simply the resolution of a small issue of GPL compatibility. So, Victor gets to use the patent to enforce his revenue stream and pay for more Free software, Free Software users get to use the patent for free, and as far as I can tell everyone wins.

    This is not really about enforcing the GPL, it didn't get close to that point. All we had was a short public dialogue. Enforcement is something that happens in court. I wouldn't even count an out-of-court settlement as enforcement, that's just avoiding the issue because the defandant thinks that a successful enforcement would be likely or doesn't think it's worthwhile to mess around in court. This was way far from anything like that.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    • pay for free software?
    • The problem is that the GPL lets me use the software without hindrance. A patent does not.

      I can use ANY other Linux to run my programs on. But if RTLinux only lets me run a particular class of software (those covered by the GPL), then I could not run any X11 based software, no Python software, and no Apache. I could run KDE, but I coudln't run KWin or Kicker.
    • Does this mean that you can use the patent for any GPLed work? Because you can take RTLinux and mutate it, until your "derivative work" bears no resemblance to the original-- except for performing operations that fall within the scope of the patent.
    • What many feel is that combining patents with free software breaks the spirit of free software. Suddenly, use is restricted. What if I want to create a real-time kernel for FreeBSD for instance?

      Besides, if this patent is about masking interrupts and prioritizing them, it's a laughable patent anyways. There should be fines for such patents. In fact, that would be a HUGE income source for the patent office.

      - Steeltoe
      • Agreed, I still don't like patents. But rather than fine people who apply when there's prior art, it should simply be easier to invalidate the patent. Their filing and legal fees would be fine enough.

        Bruce

  • The real power is in the community. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BierGuzzl ( 92635 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:41PM (#2312030)
    The FSF issued a press release because on it's own, it doesn't really have any clout to get Company x,y, or z to change. It needed the press coverage and the discussion that it generated to have any amount of sway. It has everything to do with Politics and PR rather than power and substance.

    All the same, I'm glad things seem to have worked out for the best, albeit at the unfortunate cost of airing dirty laundry in public.

  • Still need a real test (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rkent ( 73434 ) <.ude.dravrah.tsop. .ta. .tnekr.> on Monday September 17, 2001 @05:59PM (#2312122)
    All in all, it seems like the FSF has successfuly enforced the GPL even though it was neither an owner nor co-owner of the software...

    But in this "enforcement," as in others by the EFF, the change required was minor and the party was cooperative when the problem was pointed out -- the blurb even said that RTLinux was "happy to change" license provisions to comply with the GPL.

    We still need a test against a genuinely aggressive GPL violator. One who either denies the violation, or tells the EFF to go fsck themselves. The "enforcement" so far seem like a football team scrimmaging against itself: conceptually useful, but not necessarily predictive of real victory.

    • True, but every time some company changes the licensing terms on software they derived from GPL'd code it's one more point on the FSF's side when they finally do meet up with a hostile infringer. Firstly it establishes a track record of the industry considering the GPL valid. Secondly, if the infringer tries to claim it's not valid because it's unreasonable, the FSF can trot out examples of the actual, reasonable changes needed to comply to rebut the infringer. It's a variation on the same principle the big boys have used: start with the small fry and the ones who don't lose much by accomodating you and build up precedent before going after larger targets.

  • Owner? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cardinal Biggles ( 6685 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @06:13PM (#2312185)
    All in all, it seems like the FSF has successfuly enforced the GPL even though it was neither an owner nor co-owner of the software

    I suppose you mean to say that the FSF is not the copyright holder of (part of) the software?

    Copyright does not make you an owner, it makes you the beneficiary of a temporary exclusive right to copy the work. You can't own software.

    You may think I'm nit-picking, but I think that that's a very important distinction to make. The general public's (and politician's) failure to see this point is a (the?) basic problem in the thinking behind all those bad IP laws.

    • Copyright does not make you an owner, it makes you the beneficiary of a temporary exclusive right to copy the work. You can't own software.

      Right. In that vein, many people have dropped the term "IP" entirely and taken up calling such rights "government-granted monopolies," or GGMs. ( Read More... | [everything2.com] )

    • Actually in some sense copyright does make you the "owner" of a work. Let me explain. Common law (physical) property is based on the doctrine of estates. An estate is a bundle of rights attached to a thing (a car, an apple, a house etc.). Such rights include the right to posession, the right to modify or destroy, and depending on the nature of the thing, many others. Property rights may be perpetual or they may be limited in time. Different people may own estates in different things. For example, if I lease your house for a year then I own the right to posess (live in) that house for one year and some auxiliary rights, you own a whole load of other rights, including the right to my rent payments and the right to possession after that year. Some property rights arise at common law and some are created by statute.

      In the case of "Intellectual Property" rights, they are similarly rights attached (by statute) for a limited time to a thing - in this case, though, the thing is information (for example with patents) or the expression of information (for example copyright). Once again different people can hold rights in the same piece of intellectual property and, due to the nature of property, it is common for very large numbers of people to have rights (even buying a book gets you some rights in it).

      Now, intellectual property is always created by statute and hitherto usually for finite time (although successive extensions of copyrigbt have begun to change this). Also, the rights generated are quite a bit different from those involved in physical property. For this reason, they are usually regarded as separate legal fields with similar terminology because of the analogies mentioned above. The problem arrises because these are technical terms often misunderstood by lay people who then leap to the unfortunate conclusions that property and IP are the same thing.

      Stupid "copying is theft" messages result.

  • excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @06:42PM (#2312281) Homepage
    This looks like the first real win for the FSF. Hopefully there are many many more, Now if we could get geeks and techno-prople to donate 1/25th of what they donated to the WTC disaster they'd get some real teeth to go after larger targets.

    BTW, before you click on the (TROLL) button because I didnt mention the WTC while crying and wailing.. It's an example that the geeks donated and helped overwhelmingly to the aid of those poor people and the red-cross. and the fact that many are willing to donate time to go and help that is way above and beyond the call.

  • Hmm, looks like I'm going to have to retune my "GPL is Dying..." troll.
  • You can read the current license at ftp://ftp.rtlinux.com/pub/rtlinux/v3/PATENT_LICENS E [rtlinux.com].

    Note that the last mod time, as I write this, is Jan 22, 2001 - so it hasn't been changed yet. It looks like section 2.6 is going to be removed.

    One has to wonder why rtlinux screwed up here. This seems like a ton of bad publicity for such a minor change. To say nothing about the negative publicity over a patent (and a patent that wouldn't hold up in court, no less).

  • Oddly enough, the talk of press releases and social-karma (or corporate equivalent of avoiding brand tainting) seems to work in imposing social norms on recalcite companies. This is not to claim that the GPL is good or bad, but to point out that they are doing the modern equivalent of the church punishing obnoxious behaviour in the middle ages by parading perpetuators around in public with ugly masks and placards. The effectiveness might be questionable but there's no doubt that people's desire to conform (peer pressure) is a powerful psychological force (sometimes excessively so in teenagers) and it does have the advantage of being cheaper than lawsuits.

    The problem is so far the main groups that can take advantage of open source are the relatively prosperous western countries. Enforcement of the GPL license is going to be harder in places which don't respect intellectual endeavours (Eastern pirates), much less international laws (Taliban, etc). Ultimately laws are self-imposed constraints ... we don't murder people because we understand the consequences of arbitrary violence. The GPL, whether mindless ideology or social conviction, is no less powerful in that at least people in the hacker community recognise the benefits and are willing to follow the principles.

    The interesting fact about a global software economy is that reputation becomes so much more important. When details are kept track of contributors in freshmeat, sourceforge, etc. Old fashioned social ties are reused to subtlely enforce trust. Would you start up a company or work with someone you know that doesn't recognise the legimacy of software licenses? Public naming and threats to lose "face" in front of peers may ultimately unveil all sins (programming or otherwise).

    LL
  • I don't agree with the GPL. While it certainly does standardize open-source licensing, for any free software organization to become legalistic about another free software organizaion not following their terms to the letter is like biting the hand that feeds.

    The FSF doesn't own any of the things covered by the GPL. They do, however, feel compelled to dictate terms of useage to the people who are making their software publically available. This shows, to me, little more then slightly masked greed.

    I've released a few software programs that were very, very specialized, under a license I wrote myself...a 1-liner. "You can do whatever you want to this program, provided that you give me credit for making it in the first place and you don't blame me for anything wrong in it, known or not." No complaints...

    The FSF seems to have gotten too big of an ego for its own good. Someone needs to cut them back down to size, in my opinion.

    J.W. Koebel
    • I don't agree with the GPL. While it certainly does standardize open-source licensing, for any free software organization to become legalistic about another free software organizaion not following their terms to the letter is like biting the hand that feeds.


      The GPL was made with a goal in mind; the exact terms are like they are (and keep changing slightly) because the FSF actually has lawyers and actually needs a decent license that hold ups in court or similar situations, and not just a general "Do what you want and don't bug me" thing that not only defeats the meaning and purpose of the GPL but also is virtually void legally.

      I can however understand your disliking of the GPL (i.e. I admit that ppl have reasons for not liking it), but we have to view the GPL in face of the FSF's goals (the world 'goals' and 'agenda' and constantly being said to scare people about the FSF.. so the FSF has goals? So what? It's because they have goals and they take actions to pursue them that we have the software in the first place!).


      The FSF doesn't own any of the things covered by the GPL.


      You are wrong here (probably this was not exactly what you meant). The FSF is owner of *lots* of software under the GPL; in fact all the major software that is part of the GNU system is "owned" (i.e. has copyright asigned to) by the FSF. The examples are so many and of so well known and fundamental programs that I will not need to enumerate them. And this ownership isn't surpising either... people sometimes talk about "the FSF" like the FSF is some kind of rigid corporation with a fixed set of people... tha's just not the case. Many ppl assign the copyright to the FSF because they want to, and in that sense the FSF is just about everyone that believes in the FSF goals and contributes code/documentation/testing/etc to the GNU project. The FSF is, grosso modo, a community of people joined around Free Software (and a specific view on how it should be, granted), and is thus much more fluid that people like to believe.


      They do, however, feel compelled to dictate terms of useage to the people who are making their software publically available. This shows, to me, little more then slightly masked greed.


      They do not feel compeled to dictate, thay have legitimate concerns about breachs on the GPL, even though in this situation they are not copyright owners. Making software 'publically available' counts very little per se in a free software perspective. Is interesting to note that many people are very eaguer to see the GPL tested on court (and many ppl would love to see it lose) but do not like to see the FSF settling things outside them. If the FSF doesn't produce a statement about what they are doing then they are 'following their agenda' and 'locking out the community'; if they do they are 'enforcing their views' and 'trying to get support from the community because they can't make it themselves'. Honestly, I fail to see what 'community' is this one, since we all know that that the concept of what is free software (among lots of other things) are totally distinct for ppl inside the 'community'; the FSF as a community, on the other hand, has a much more solid point of view and defined ideas (like most of the BSD ppl).

      Greed? If the FSF refused to say anything just because they aren't the copyright owners ppl would cry havoc with 'they are abandoning other ppl just because they didn't assign the copyright to them, serves you to see their hidden agenda, etc,etc'. The FSF has a pragmatic view on things, once again because of it's well defined goals and ideas (which are of course questionable and ppl are free to like them or not).


      I've released a few software programs that were very, very specialized, under a license I wrote myself...a 1-liner. "You can do whatever you want to this program, provided that you give me credit for making it in the first place and you don't blame me for anything wrong in it, known or not." No complaints...


      Why should there be? In what way does that prove anything about the GPL or the FSF?


      The FSF seems to have gotten too big of an ego for its own good. Someone needs to cut them back down to size, in my opinion.


      LOL. The ppl who delight in using software that they obtain freely and then question the very essence of what makes the software available to them are the ones with an oversized ego. To think that someone should change the FSF just because a present hype and coolness of being and anti-GNU badass is laughable.

      Cut them to their size? Hardly. The size of the FSF is mainly symbolic and because of that, and as long as they continue with their course of action, virtually impossible to 'cut down'.

      yours,

      fsm

      fsmunoz@sdf.lonestar.org

  • I'm suprised at the number of "this is good" posts. Actually, I'm glad that they've resolved this dispute, but all of this "hubub" should have never happened in the first place. When I read the some of the background articles on this, I noticed that Yodaiken was initially very surprised at the community reaction to his license. Although the article was worded mildly, it sounded to me like he was insulted not only by the FSF accusation but also by many of the comments posted on our own loving Slashdot. It was an obvious case of "oops, we goofed" that should have been handled by FSF sending a nice letter saying something like "Please notice that you have altered the GPL language to impose conditions on this license that are contrary to the goals of the GPL and FSF. Assuming that your work does not contain the efforts of others which are already licensed under the GPL, please considering removing this restriction or use a different license." Instead, a rather inflammatory press relese about violations of the GPL was sent out, and lots of comments about "Who are these people?" were posted.


    Yodaiken's company is a big contributor to Linux and OSS. I believe that, as such, they are due at least a modicum of respect and consideration. If polite attempts at correcting them are ineffective, you can always turn to the more heavy-handed approach later. People need to remember that if we want to be a community, we have to act like one. There will, as a matter of course, always be disagreements. Most of them can truly be solved without too much sword rattling by merely going to lunch together or something.


    No, I believe this whole thing was just rotten. It's enough of an issue to make me very cautious about using GPL on any software I may contribute. I would hate to see what would happen if I accidentally did something contrary to the goals of the FSF.

  • I'm curious why the FSF got involved in this at all. They have nothing to do with the Linux kernel. That's someone elses IP. I think this is another example of the FSF sticking it's nose in to other peoples business and making it theirs. I just don't like that.

    If the owners of the IP had issues with what was going on they could have handled this.
  • Lawyers defend copyrights everyday, even though they don't own them.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close