LWN on the Patent Encumbrence of SELinux 186
Anonymous Coward writes "LWN has a story about patents in SELinux. The article says: "Much of the actual work in the implementation of SELinux was done by Secure Computing Corporation (SCC). SCC, in its implementation of SELinux, used a technology that it calls type enforcement. As it turns out, SCC has a patent on this technology." Sigh.
OpenViolation (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had one line of code of my opensource in thier distro, I'd be on them like mad.
Re:OpenViolation (Score:2, Informative)
If they have not enforced it yet, I am not comforted.
As a contributor to thier product (The total distro), I would be a concerned party, and in fairnes would want them to consider my input before violating my agreement to the GPL.
Does anyone know if there is a GPL for patents?
Re:OpenViolation (Score:3, Insightful)
My original response was to the "one line of code anywhere in their distro".
The hinge would be on the word aggregate, I won't conceed that a 'secure linux distro' would be considered a simple aggregation. If they were distributing a 'secure linux component' I could see restrictions being allowed.
The following is from the end of the preamble to the GPL, I for one think it is quite clear.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary.
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the rising numbers of 'closed distros' that ride on the backs of folks who have had the courage to free thier work for the benefit of all, only to have a few take the benefit of themselves.
There has been great debate about what free means, but there also appears to be some confusion as to what open means in the GPL.
Your assertion is that nothing was violated, not about 'one line of code'.
I contend that they have at the least violated the spirit of the GPL copyright, even if by chance the didn't violate the law.
They need to find a way out of the box they've put themselves in and soon.
Re:But its the NSA who is violating the GPL (Score:2)
[slashdot.org]
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program
So if indeed there is some gpled and pantened stuff mixed together and the scc distributed it to the nsa, then the nsa is within their rights to do what ever they want with it.
Opposing views (Score:2, Redundant)
How does the GPL interact with patents? GPL is a copyright (copyleft) law, whereas patents are an exclusive monopoly. How does one separate them?
Certainly, given the code, we (by "we", I mean "you" the kernel hacker
Re:Opposing views (Score:4, Informative)
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Re:Opposing views (Score:2, Interesting)
If this is true, free software can easily be damaged by patent lawyers.
Conclusion: abolish software patents.
Re:Opposing views (Score:2, Funny)
Conclusion: abolish software patents.
...or patent lawyers! or better yet: lawyers in general!
Re:Opposing views (Score:1)
Not necessarily. Maybe more of a case of how much you
can release your rights in a web page, which can be
yanked at any moment? Keep in mind they *did* claim
there would be no restrictions.
Re:Opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
So they (we assume consciously) chose to work their code into Linux and redistribute it. This action implies intent to comply with the GPL. Considering the specific requirements of the GPL in regards to patents (must be royalty-free for ALL users who can receive the distribution), the only logical conclusion to draw is that SCC aggreed at the moment of distribution to permit use of their patent within Linux as royalty-free to the public (which includes individuals, governments, deities, and businesses alike).
it's a fairly a->b->c sort of thing. The only thing assumed is that SCC had the conscious intent to comply with the GPL... If they never intended to comply with the GPL, then this whole point is moot and they are in violation of the license! This certainly isn't a rocket-science concept to understand.
So what are our outcomes? (1) SCC provides royalty-free use of their patent in SELinux, (2) SCC withdraws their code, (3) SCC tries to play hardball by requiring licensing while violating the GPL and tries to fight the GPL in court. The likelihood of 3 doesn't seem too likely.
Re:Opposing views (Score:4, Interesting)
The outcome to watch for is (4) SCC blows away their license to distribute Linux and then shuts down all Linux distribution that involves their patented stuff, until the patented stuff is completely removed. The reason to watch for this is as follows: while destroying your own product (a Linux distribution) is bad business, there is enough outside interest in doing great damage to Linux that it WILL become rewarding to do so, to the extent that the patent becomes indispensable. If the patent becomes completely indispensable to Linux, the value of buying out or subverting the patent holder becomes astronomical to a competitor- some of whom claim to have rather a lot of money.
This holds for ANY patent being licensed into Free software, not just the SCC.
Patent problem (Score:1)
If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?
And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.
Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?
Re:Patent problem (Score:4, Informative)
You should read the GPL [gnu.org]. In the introduction, it states: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." For the details, you should check sections 7 and 8 of the GPL.
Let's put this in a different way: if a company distributes some code for which they own a patent under the GPL, then the only way for them to comply with section 7 of the GPL is to allow royalty-free usage, redistribution and modification of the code. Otherwise, they would not be allowed to distribute the code under the GPL. They would have to stop distributing it, or change the license.
Re:Patent problem, easy as... (Score:1)
Companies either,
Sit on patnets and sue,
Sit on them an hold the market and sue,
License the use of there patents (GPL in this case).
Or have 'open patents', e.g. a group of telcos all have patents in key ares, and to stop all the licensing/sueing problems they aggree to share there patents in an open way.
Re:Patent problem (Score:3, Insightful)
its all stupid
patents should be on a process and as such software should not be patentable
its like saying I have copyrighted the ability to write trashy novels
there is no way that you could get away with this
simple because its too wide rangeing people argue that their software patents cover very specific things but unfortunatly you cant have them if you dont allow the wide rangeing
frankly its all a mess
just say no to software patents in europe
write to your MEP if you live in europe
Who is my MEP [ark.ac.uk]
regards
John Jones
Re:Patent problem (legal perspective) (Score:4, Informative)
Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?
Worst case scenario: a patent could make it illegal to use a particular software package, even one licensed under the GPL. Depending on patent laws, it could also interfere with redistributing GPL code.
If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?
Potentially not. The GPL [gnu.org] is a copyright license, it gives people the right to distribute the software. It is not a patent license, it does not grant people the right to use any patents.
A patent holder who is friendly to the Free software community will provide, seperately from the GPL, a license permitting anyone to use, for free, the patent within the context of software licensed under a Free Software [gnu.org] license. The DFSG [debian.org] makes a good set of guidelines for this purpose. Generally such licenses are void if you sue the patent holder over their use of your own patents. These are called Royalty-Free patents (or RF Patents). Some companies, whose patents are purely defensive, give a royalty-free license to everyone who isn't suing them.
To my knowledge, SCC has not done this for the patents connected to SELinux. This is why people are upset.
And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.
You can modify existing code or write new code if and only if you do so within the bounds of the above discussed patent licenses.
Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?
Yes they can. Let's say the ACME Software company comes up with a great streaming video codec, they post the specifications online and encourage people to use it. A group of people take those specifications and make programs to make, broadcast and view ACME video, the program gets distributed widely. Two years later we find that prior to publishing the spec, ACME quietly filed for a patent, and it has come through.
My understanding is that ACME would have the legal right (though not the moral right, IMHO) to charge everyone who uses that software, or who has used it in the two year period while the patent is pending, for each time they use the software, or distribute files that were made with that software. This scenario is not that different from what Unisys did with LZW encryption, and GIF files [cloanto.com].
Note: I am not a lawyer, none of the above should be construed as legal advice.
For the Good of the Community (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:2)
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:2)
Either let the technology be public domain, or assign the patent to the FSF. Agreeing to "not place restrictions on the use of this technology" is a shallow promise. The situation needs to be rectified to where SCC *is unable* to place restrictions on the technology, kept promises or broken ones.
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:2)
If so, would we want them to do so? Eminent domain can cut both ways, since the federal government can assign ownership to corporations, state or federal government in addition to effectively putting something into the physical analog to public domain.
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:2)
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:2)
Re:For the Good of the Community (Score:3, Interesting)
SCC, NSA and other interested parties have noted that TE and DTE (domain/type enforcement) are patented respectively by SCC and NAI labs (both of which have contributed substantial code to SELinux.
SCC's statement on their website was vague, simply saying: will be no restrictions on the use of TE by the Linux open source community ... will release source code for all the modifications to the existing kernel and for a general-purpose security policy engine under the GPL
LSM itself does not implement TE or DTE and is not affected by these patents. LSM is a standard framework allowing(many) system security implementations to be used in the linux kernel without needing extensive re-writes for every kernel release.
Things that are not clear (to me and I think to most of the participants in this 'issue' with SELinux) include:
- on what would this patent be restricted / enforced? - closed source?
- exactly who is allowed unrestricted use? Linux? GPL-code? BSD?
- when these and other questions are answered, will the letter (spirit?) of GPL be preserved?
- When THAT has been determined, how will the various contributors to SELinux respond?
These aren't simple answers, I think SCC's original statment was clear about *intent* and I sincerely hope they'll clarify adequately and in a manner that allows development / deployment of SELinux based tools to proceed.Questions:
At what level of patent-restrictions would GPL be broken?
Not knowing the details, I don't think there's much to discuss until SCC (and hopefully NAI) clarify their plans wrt these patents and issue clear statements.
My impression is that they're acting in good faith; I'm ok with their taking down the vague statments from the web page while developing something that we can all count on.
The statment quoted on LWN about "needing to negotiate a license to use TE commercially" looks ill-informed. SCC has released GPL'd code which implements TE I believe that limiting that code from commercial use would violate GPL.
I strongly suspect that various folks at SCC weren't communicating adequately (Imagine that! geeks/marketing/etc not having the best communication skills?! :-)).
Got my finger crossed in hopes this works out smoothly.
hmm (Score:1, Informative)
My IANAL conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that this also falls under the class of submarine patents. Either way, if I'm right in my conclusion, they can't do anything about it - you can't "unlicense" a GPL license; and it's non-exclusive, so anybody that has it can keep it going even after you stop offering it...
Summary: Chill out in the walk-in freezer!
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
From clause 7 at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
And since it is there own patent the sure can distibute it, or they should find a way to sue themself for distributing the software royalty-free. (That whould make an interesting case...)
They published the code under GPL they gave away the right to use and modify this code, they cannot withdraw that once given right under the terms of the GPL. Basically, I think they gave as they right to use, at least this implementation, of their patent at the moment the GPL'ed it. (But IANAL.)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Of course, the mods should be slapped for not modding up the original one...
Implications for MP3+V? (Score:2)
What this means is that I can take a software patent and distribute my own patented software under the GPL with the only obligations on my patent that any software that implements my patent must be GPL'ed itself. This would not violate the GPL.
What would the implications of this be for something like PlusV? According to PlusV's patent license [plusv.org]: "In addition to the other terms and conditions of this License, use of the Patented Process is permitted, without fee or royalty, when used by software licensed under the GPL. Free use in mass production audio playback devices is explicitly not approved within this license" (emphasis by yerricde). Given that Free firmware for pocket audio players is now available, how is this restriction legal?
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Disclaimer: IANAL
Unisys allowed patented code (LZW) to be used in GPL products. The GIF format was largely scuppered because of this patent. Just being GPL does not protect you from patents.
You claim that they can write the code, which is true. But just placing the code under GPL does not protect you from further patent attacks, unless of course you are claiming prior art, which this is not. It is work based on the patent, you are free to modify it, and to redistribute it, except that they can still come and shut you down as a derivative work, since your work is based on the patent. This is what people are worried about.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, there is something called estoppel, which might apply here. But, basically if you promise something, and people do things based upon that promise, you can't go back and change it later and screw everyone over. I am not sure if it applies here, but companies shouldn't be able to say one thing, then wait a few years then change their minds.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
If you find out someone is infringing on your patent, however, you can ignore them until you decide that you don't want them doing that anymore. And then sue them for patent violation regardless of how long you knew about the issue, whether or not you warned them, etc. It may be different if you told them outright "it's ok", and certainly knowing about it and not acting on it may result in a reduced penalty to the infringing party, but it's still an infringement. And at the very least you could deny them the right to continue infringing.
IANAL, but I took an intellectual property law in college (and the patent/trademark bits are still relevant at least).
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
SE does not hold a copywrite on the entire kernel they've released so they *can not* dual license it.
They may not even be able to distribute it at all if their patent is an impermissable restriction in violation of the GPL as it appears to be.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
GPL is not an implied patent license (Score:2)
The GNU GPL is not an implied patent license. Its purpose is not "to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims." However, if I release software under the GPL, but withhold the patent, then the release is a sham. If I don't own the copyright to all the code, then it may be illegal.
The point is, we'll have to look carefully at the patent license for boilerplate lawyerese, like a termination clause, that would be incompatible with the GPL. A GPL-compatible patent license must be written very broadly.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, but you are wrong. See my previous comment [slashdot.org] in this thread. According to section 7 of the GPL, you must distribute your code with a royalty-free license or not distribute it at all (or not under the GPL).
So now Secure Computing Corporation (SCC) can do several things:
They have no other choice: either they comply with the GPL and allow royalty-free usage in any GPL code, or they cancel their contributions and stop the SELinux project. Given the nature of their contribution, the third option (releasing binary-only drivers under a proprietary license enforcing the patents without modifying the kernel) cannot be applied, so the options are limited for them.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
We're in agreement about that, but the problem is that copyright law and patent law are different. Me and thee can continue to copy, modify and distribute their GPL'd source as much as we like (as long as we complt with GPL) because the GPL license they chose to put on their copyrighted source gives us an explicit license to do so. However, the GPL isn't as clear as it could be on asserting that licensees must explicitely license all patents in perpetuity.
There's only an implicit licensing of patents, and only as long as they're still distributing the GPL'd source. Now, it seems clear that if they do enforce patents, then they lose the right to distrubute further source derived from or linked with GPL source, but that doesn't effect the source that's already out there.
Rather, it effects it in as much as they (retroactively?) lose the right they had to use other people's copyrighted GPL'd source, so can be sued by the copyright owners on that basis, but that's a separate issue to their patent ownership. They can, effectively, stop releasing their product while at the same time leveraging their patent claim on anyone who keeps using the versions already out there. The GPL doesn't stop them from doing this, it just stops them from releasing further GPL source and perhaps leaves them open to copyright infringement for their past use of GPL'd code. But when they actually copied it it, they were complying with the license terms, so it's going to be a tough call.
Re:My IANAL conclusion (Score:2)
Patents only last 17 years. There's no requirement to license patents past that point.
Bringing perpetuities raises a big red flag in courts because they don't like perpetual restrictions. There are no perpetuities here.
I'll have to ask any gov't clients to Classify it. (Score:2)
This does disappoint me, though. I hope SCC will behave as they originally claimed [216.239.35.100] (in the SELinux FAQ document), but there's no law AFAIK (and no, I am Not A Lawyer) that can stop them from being Bad People.
Bummer.
The GPL (Score:1)
They are modifying the Linux kernel to do this. The kernel is distributed under the GPL. So they can't just add some nice security features and start charging for a licence as that goes against the GPL, doesn't it?
Re:The GPL (Score:2)
As long as they can get their code in the form of loadable modules, GPLed kernel does not restrict them from anything. I don't know which is the case in this case. And yes, you can patent things that utilize opensource, just see the USPTO archives for reference, try searching with keyword 'linux' for example.
If used well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If used well (Score:2)
Two choices under the GPL (Score:1)
"any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use...
So if these mods are in the kernel they will either need to licence the code to everyone, or stop distributing SELinux.
Original Message to the list was: (Score:1, Insightful)
--Tom
Dr. Tom Haigh, CTO
Secure Computing Corp."
- Further contact info ommited -
The guy was responding to a question (from Colo) that looked like they were ditributing GPL code without actually understang the GPL itself...
Just another software patent fiasco (Score:2, Informative)
This is just another example of software patent BS. Doesn't the GPL forbid/advise against patents anyway? If that's the case then why would SCC bother to say they were releasing the work under the GPL? It looks more like they just noticed that there could be money to be made on this, so now it's time to break out the patents and scream about royalties.
Way to go, SCC. I think you've confused the 'spirit of the GPL' with something else far more ugly.
Because so few people have actually READ the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
I'll post the relevant section here:
The situation that the FSF had in mind was a company taking GPL code, then injecting patented code in a attempt to de-GPL it and make it proprietary. The protection provided by copyright is the leverage that enforces this.
What they didn't apparently consider was a patent owner voluntarily providing code (that they have the copyright to) under the GPL license. However, I think (I hope) the license is clear enough that if the code is GPL, it can't be retracted (even by the copyright holder) or restricted by patents.
IANAL, but I bet this is giving some FSF lawyers pause to consider whether they need an explicit clause in the GPL to cover this.
Re:Because so few people have actually READ the GP (Score:2)
I don't think so. The patent owners set the patent license. If they decide to publish the patented code as GPLed software, then they must comply with the GPL and the software, using the patented techique can be distributed free of charge. Since they certainly can set the patent license, they appearently have choosen to set it to no-cost for usage in the linux kernel and derived works. Therefore, any use of this patented techique in an GPLed software will be possible.
If they would choose to set a license fee > 0 for usage in the linux kernel, then the GPL would force them not to distribute a kernel modified with their patented techique.
As usual IANAL.
Re:Because so few people have actually READ the GP (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, but what I'm interested in is what happens to the source that's already out there, with a GPL license on it. If they now try and enforce their patent, they void their GPL compliance, and lose the right to continue distributing code based on or linked with GPL code. But it's already out there. So what happens to their (copyrighted) source that was distributed under the GPL and which is now in the hands of many individuals?
They can't retroactively remove the GPL granted rights from that source, but on the other hand, they can't apply the GPL to it now or continue to distribute it. So if I have a copy of it (and I do), can I continue to modify and distribute their source? I didn't violate the GPL, and I'm not applying patent restrictions, so why should I (and the potential recipients) suffer from their patent lockdown? But then it means that I can keep distributing their source with a GPL license on it, but they can't, which gives me more powers. But heck, they can still sue me for patent infringement, because patent law is separate from copyright law. The GPL gives me the right to copy, modify and distribute their source, but their patent stops me from using it!
This looks like a bit of a legal minefield. I'm usually fairly clear on where the GPL leaves me, but in this case I'm stumped.
Re:Because so few people have actually READ the GP (Score:3, Insightful)
In so doing, they will blow away their own ability to distribute Linux (possibly permanently). However, they will also be setting up a situation where nobody else is free to distribute (or use?) their patented stuff either. Those people will then be unable to distribute Linux either- to the extent that it depends on the patented stuff. They'd be able to distribute OTHER Linux dists that did not contain the patents.
So it's a doomsday switch: having anything patented in Linux provides a chance for the patent holder to blow themselves away and also take out everybody else, to the extent that the patented stuff is indispensable. If there was a patented thing that was absolutely indispensable to Linux, it would be a tactic that could shut down the whole movement (causing it to be GNU/ with nothing after it ;) ). It would require that the patent holder blow away their own work and, as someone else said, be a 'patch looking for a kernel', which is simply a measuring of relative value: is the financial hit of ruining the value of this IP less than, say, 40 billion dollars from MS for killing off Linux and making everyone start over with the Hurd?
For these reasons I'd say, totally reject patents in the context of free software. Any patents, even 'defensive' ones, can potentially cause this situation, and I would have thought the technolibertarian 'let's make our own patent pool and fight it out rather than ask that the rules be changed' types would be the FIRST to accept that, if offered enough money, anybody'll crack. In a perfect idealistic world, maybe 'open source patent pools' would be safe, but we don't live in one, and in practice it's more like stockpiling dynamite and using it as barricades. Stupid!
Re:Because so few people have actually READ the GP (Score:2)
Nice summary. I think we're beginning to understand just how badly patents and the GPL mix. I'm sure there's a bunch of guys out there tearing out their hair and screaming "I told you so! Why did nobody listen?". Sorry, guys, we should have listened.
As an addenda to your point about defensive patents and anyone cracking if they're offered enough money, let's not forget that if (e.g.) Red Hat go Chapter 11, then administrators will step in and just flat out sell their assets, including their patents, to the highest bidder. And we've always said that Microsoft couldn't kill the GPL code base by assimilation...
Re:Because so few people have actually READ the GP (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that GPL 3 will fold a number of the IBM Public License concepts as they relate to patents into the GNU General Public License.
This is something we need sooner rather than later, and I'm hopeful that the FSF will recongize this need and make a new GPL soon.
Once this hapens, the ambigious situations like this one will be resolved (though the patent issue will still be there).
- Serge Wroclawski
Legal implications of this ? (Score:5, Interesting)
- how are those patents going to benefit the companies that filed them ? It's mainly a closed-source word out there, how are they to prove that a competitor used the same technology in a closed-source product ?
- it does not appear to harm the free software community for the moment, but what later ? What if those components are no longer distributed under a free license ? SE Linux raises the problem with the explicit mention being removed from their pages, as mentionned by LWN.
- isn't it just a problem with the US patent office, who are overloaded with work, who do not always check the validity of a patent with regards to prior art, and the US legal system which allows lawyers of big companies to blackmail and racket smaller companies on unfair patent claims ? See this site [freeipx.org] which refers to a previous
/. post on the subject. I personnaly think that kind of situation is an incentive for RedHat and SELinux to spend big bucks on patents.
I clearly don't see the free software community benefiting from this situation. Individual programmers will have to face both the possiblity that a rogue company sues them unfairly for patent infringement, and the possibility that another company, owning patents on parts of free software, changes its attitude towards the GPL and decides to un-GPL their code and go proprietary.Say "thanks" to US lawyers and Powers That Be for allowing that nightmare to come true.
there's more to free software than GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Not to start a GPL-free v. BSD-free flamefest, but the Tux, real-time, and secure Linux patents harm BSD, which is part of the free software community.
A patent is least harmful as part of a patent pool, as described in "Mutual Defense Against Software Patents [mit.edu]."
Re:Legal implications of this ? (Score:2)
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for just a moment....
Say "thanks" to US lawyers and Powers That Be for allowing this $350 billion dollar a year industry to come true.
IIRC, it was the Supreme Court that ruled "everything under the sun made by man can be patented." My personal bias aside, it is the argument above that will actually have to be refuted if you want patent reform imho because Congress will be listening to the industry and not to an unorganized group of programmers if and when they even considered the act of congress it would probably take to modify patent law.
I recommend patience (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, if they decide that it is incompatible with the GPL, we can panic. If we let our fears and emotions run away with this we could just drive them farther away from the Open Source Community. As one poem says:
What is Type Enforcement? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard the same phrase applied to capabilitiy-based architectures [washington.edu], but these are systems built around hardware enforcement, and I get the impression that SCC's scheme is software-based.
Re:What is Type Enforcement? (Score:2)
In the original patent, the TE was done in hardware by a security chip. The chip triggered on all transitions to kernel mode.
The difference between TE and say, the TCB/Orange-book model in Windows NT, is that TE is more mathematically elegant and therefore presumably more amenable to automated validation and verification.
In the real world, TE is performed in software at the kernel transition point. For example for sendmail, it enumerates all of the files and directories that sendmail is allowed to see (/etc/sendmail.cf, /usr/spool/mail, etc.) Objects can include files, directories, /dev/*, sockets, NICs, IP addresses, just about any kernel object.
TE is orthogonal to the super-user concept. So a having root on a TE system doesn't get you anywhere, and in fact will probably trigger all sorts of SACL alarms.
GPL Section 7 (Score:2)
Wouldn't section 7 cover it? If people who receive SELinux directly from SCC could not modify and redistribute the code without paying patent royalties on SCC's stuff, then SCC's stuff would violate the GPL and they lose the right to redistribute a work based on the GPL'd Linux code, no?
Question (Score:2)
Does Linux's license specifically say software, drivers, tools, etc. must be open source as well? Could it be that specific without scaring off developers? Would it be legal?
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
(Do you know how hard it is to get that all out in one cough?)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Time for a free patents consortium? (Score:3, Interesting)
It might seem a bit daft in the current case where SCC have GPL'd their code, but consider this:
1. Company A dual license their product - free under the GPL, and non-free under a closed license. The free version could contain community patches, the non-free version could not, but the non-free version could be licensed by a third party without that third party having to open its source. Patent fees would apply in this case.
2. Company R supports GPL'd product L, Company M makes closed-source product W. R patents several of the changes they have made. They are then sued for patent infringement by M - R countersues, via the umbrella group for infringements in W, not for patents they hold directly, but for patents held by the umbrella group on behalf of members.
This assumes you can GPL license and enforce patents on people who are using the patented invention, rather than a copy of the code, in their product (code copying is obviously covered by the GPL directly). I don't know that this is true - and I doubt that Stallman would approve. However it might increase the sense of safety people have with patents like this and the Red Hat ones waiting in the wings; it may also encourage more companies to GPL, since they retain the ability to chase closed-source competitors who steal their ideas.
Just a thought.
Secure Computing Corporation (Score:3, Informative)
These folks have a content filter available for the Squid Proxy Cache. When I hired on at my current employer, we were using MS Proxy with the Websense content filter. (Employer wants to block porn access in the workplace.) Anyhow, MS Proxy was requiring too much babysitting, so I investigated, tested, and switched to Squid running on Linux. SCC was the only vendor I could find that had content filter for Squid (on Linux, anyway).
So the first year we were on, our annual cost for filter was around $2000. Renewal time came, and they bumped it up to $4000. This year at renewal time, they bumped it to $7000. I politely explained to SCC that their pricing terms sucked, and that if it were my decision we wouldn't pay them that much to filter in the workplace. Their response was amazing. They said that the price increase was necessary because they were "filtering the entire Internet." Must be very busy people to filter the entire Internet.
Also had a problem with them at renewal time a year ago. We had paid one of their resellers for the annual renewal, and thought all was well. Then suddenly we were cut off from filter updates. When I contacted them to find out why, they said that their reseller had not passed along payment to them for our renewal. They also told me that they subsequently severed relations with the reseller. (Keep in mind that the reseller was an authorized agent of SCC when we purchased the renewal, acting on their behalf to sell the subscriptions.) I explained that we had paid their agent, and were therefore entitled to the service that was promised. After a bit of back-and-forth, they relented and allowed access to the filter update service.
Anyhow, I know this is a bit OT. But the point is that they have shown evidence of being either an immature organization, a greedy organization, or an incompetent organization (or any combination of such). I don't doubt that they think they're helping the world become a better place. But if they have patented software in ANY Linux distro, then good luck getting them to do the right thing. (At least without much kicking and screaming.) I don't trust these folks, and if I had my way we'd dump the content filter in a heartbeat.
filtering the entire Internet (Score:2)
OPEN Patents! (Score:4, Interesting)
All it would take is one killer app license under the OPL to create public demand. Then if anyone wanted to duplicate that functionality, the OPL would allow it -- BUT the corresponding GPL (or the OPL itself if properly worded) would require developers to release source code with their implementation.
I submit that this would have an even GREATER impact than the GPL. Developers would be free to try widely disparate approaches to achieving the patented functionality. The different algorithms and approaches could be compared with the best methods prevailing because the best code would be that actually used. Think of the contribution to computer science possible with widespread comparison of designs. I think the industry-wide effects would result in much higher-quality code in general.
Don't tell me that Open Source cannot get patents. If someone bothered to look, they could find a patent attorney who would be thrilled to get a patent for Open Source code as long as someone paid the filing fees (for small entities, about $350). I am a registered patent attorney and I would be thrilled to prosecute one of these applications. I'm sure I am not alone.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:4, Interesting)
As a lawyer, how would you like to have to check each tactic you were planing to use in defending one of your clients, before actually using it, in order to check that it had not been patented by another lawyer?
That what the patent industry is trying to do to us. They (you?) pretend they're are doing us a favour (chanting "Innovation", "Protection of Property" etc), but in fact you are burdening us with the extra workload of (if anyone could be bothered) having to check every line of code against a patent database, or in the absence of that, getting sued for thinking of an idea after (of sometimes several years before) someone else.
Not only that, but the patents are worded to ensure that they provide almost no information whatsoever to someone interested in the technique they describe, so the claimed goal of driving forward the state of the art is total nonsense (can you cite a single instance of a Computer Scientist referring to patents in order to learn a novel technique? I doubt it).
Software patents are a government authorised tax on the software industry to make monopolistic corporations and patent lawyers rich. They have no positive effect on the state of the art in the field of computing whatsoever.
Unfortunately the patent lawyers are in charge of the patent offices, and those arms of government that are supposed to regulate them, so we're likely to end up as thoroughly shafted in Europe [eurolinux.org] as is the current situation in the USA.
Having said all that, patents on other, material inventions seem totally fine to me, so I'm not saying patents or patent lawyers are evil per se, just the ones that try to take my (software) toolbox away, when I made my toolbox myself.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
If you had bothered to READ and actually THINK about my post, you would see that what I am advocating with the OPL would provide a GREAT contribution to Computer Science and specifically Software Engineering as a discipline. Show me another potential framework for a large community to examine and critique differing approaches to provide the same functionality.
Calling something "moronic" will not do anything to help you deal with the fact that software patents are here to stay. An OPL is a way to ensure that Open Source software not only survives, but thrives, contributing to the body of knowledge in the area in the process.
If you have specific criticisms about the idea of an OPL, I'd love to hear them. If you want to rant and rave, go on Jerry Springer.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see that patenting Open Source ideas will encourage the discovery of a single algorithm that would not otherwise have been thought of, so all that would occur is that some of the limited monetary resources of the Free Software community would be diverted to propping up the structure of the patent office.
You say that $350 is a small price to pay. How many patentable ideas do you think are contained in the body of Free Software code Debian GNU/Linux (which only integrates a fraction of the software available) currently runs to about 5GB of compressed source code --- there are a lot of ideas in there, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming that someone decided to go through that and patent all the as yet unpatented ideas, what purpose would that serve?
How about ideas that were thought up by people in teritories that do not recognise sotware patents?
As a non-lawyer, I'd assume that that fact that all that source has been published would mean that it would act as prior art, but I have a feeling that the USPTO allows after the event registration (feel free to enlighten me).
If it is prior art, haw can one ever register a Free Software idea, given that the publication is inherent in the development process.
If it is not prior art, what is to stop someone else from claiming to have originated these ideas, and patenting them themselves?
Assuming that it turns out that the an was patentable, and what you suggest was done, in what sense would it be more useful that simply publishing the code under the GPL (apart perhaps from the fact of preempting someone else's patenting of the same idea)?
I can see that it would allow one to prevent others from using that idea, but that is pretty much entirely against the principles of Free Software (if someone else wants to use an idea from one of my programs, and they go to the effort of reimplementing it, they're welcome to it).
I can also see that it is likely to be much more difficult to win a case relying on patent law, rather than copyright law, which means that the likelihood is that the party with the deeper pockets has an unfair advantage, which is not likely to be the Free Software developer.
Was that better? (I've calmed down, now that they've given me one of my dried frog tablets
As to your point about the patent system being there to stay, it seems that there are likely to be parts of the world where that will not be the case for some time, and in places like South Africa and India they've been moving in the opposite direction (at least as far as pharmaceuticals are concerned). Reform of the USPTO has even been rumoured, and parts of Europe seem less than keen to get involved in this form of silliness.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Perhaps there would never be a single algorithm "discovered" by patenting. However, if you recall that patents protect functionality and that a good (and valid) patent must disclose the functionality in sufficient detail so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention by reading the patent, then by comparing the source code that an OPL would require to be disclosed with the functional disclosure from the patent, we can learn a great deal about the process of implementing software, which to me is a goal that is not only worthwhile but critical to efforts to ensure that software development becomes/remains a true engineering discipline. In this context, you should be able to see that a software patent would perform as both a requirements spoecification, a design document, and even perhaps a data flow diagram. Taking that information and implementing it is just good software engineering. I won't presume to speak for David Pressman, but I believe he would agree with me.
I hope that adresses a large chunk of your comments. As for people who are in territories that do not recognize software patents, they can get the patents in the United States. A US patent is then prior art that will prevent a patent from issuing in other countries (and vice-versa).
For an explanation about the publication problem, that does not exist in the same way in the US. See my other post [slashdot.org] on that.
The OPL I am advocating would be an OPEN license. The GPL can be used to prevent people from using code as well as to open it up. You either comply with the terms of the GPL or you can't use the code. Why? IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU (unless you wrote the base code and are the GPL licensor). You are using it with PERMISSION. I don't have time to look it up, but I know I have seen at least 1 story here about a lawsuit to require a company to comply with the GPL's terms. The same concept applies to patents. But -- think of the possibility of a closed-source company liking an Open Source idea so much that they put resources into implementing the patented idea. The OPL would require them to then release the source. Think it won't happen? I think it could. Apple is moving into a mixed closed/open source model with Chimera as one of the latest examples of it's cooperation with the Open Source community.
if someone else wants to use an idea from one of my programs, and they go to the effort of reimplementing it, they're welcome to it
This wouldn't change that at all except that someone reimplementing your "idea" a/k/a invention (because at that point it is no longer a bare idea) would have to release the source. Under the GPL if someone "reimplementing" did not use your code base, they are under no obligation to release their code.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Oops, I think I just did it again, sorry. Hope you're not getting too bored.
However, if you recall that patents protect functionality and that a good (and valid) patent must disclose the functionality in sufficient detail so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention by reading the patent,
I do recall that, but I am yet to see a patent that is both comprehensible, and not for something blindingly obvious.
That is from the point of view of someone with a Computing Science degree (including a minor module on UK IP law) with 16 years subsequent professional experience as a programmer.
I'm yet to see a good software patent. That being the case, it's difficult to be sympathetic with arguments that assume that good patents are the norm, or even likely.
An example of a "good" software patent would be really helpful, to contrast with the legion of bad patents that have been widely aired.
The point I was trying to make about non-patenting territories is that if I live in such a territory (which I sort of do, but probably not for much longer), and if I don't care if people use my ideas, as long as they don't try to stop me using theirs (which I may or may not have arrived at independently) then I've got no reason to be interested in the patent system, have I?
Let's say I come up with something very clever, and I don't bother to patent it. Someone in the US downloads my implementation of my idea, writes it up as a patent, and applies for it, and then starts enforcing it, possibly even pursuing people that are using my implementation. Is that a realistic scenario? What should I then do to rectify the situation? Attempt to overturn the patent, by showing prior art? Am I right in thinking that overturning a bad patent costs about $1.5M these days? Don't you think that scenario highlights some fundamental problems with the US patent system?
But -- think of the possibility of a closed-source company liking an Open Source idea so much that they put resources into implementing the patented idea. The OPL would require them to then release the source.
You're thinking like a Patent Lawyer, while I'm thinking like a Computer Scientist. I don't think anyone should have the right to stop me using the best solution to a problem that I can think of, even if they thought of it first, because I consider algorithms to be equivalent to mathematical formulae, and as such discoveries, not inventions. Equally, I don't care if I thought of something first, I don't feel I have the right to stop other people using that idea. I certainly don't want to think of something only to discover I'm not allowed to use it because some government decided to issue a patent on it. I REALLY don't want to have to cross-check every idea I have and then have to choose between licensing the patent or producing a (possibly technically inferior) alternative solution, just because someone else thinks like me, but was quicker at getting to the patent office.
The current law in Europe [eurolinux.org] states something like "programs for computers are not patenable as such", which the folks at the EPO cheerfully ignore and go ahead and issue software patents all the same (BTW, you couldn't explain what "as such" actually means there could you?). What nobody has succeeded in explaining to me is why we should contemplate allowing Software Patents at all. Obviously some (but not all) Lawyers like the idea, but the patent system is supposed to be for the benefit of society, or the industry, or something, but we Eurpean computer scientists have been cheerfully innovating without them, so why burden us with them now?
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
I'm yet to see a good software patent. That being the case, it's difficult to be sympathetic with arguments that assume that good patents are the norm, or even likely.
I'm the first to admit that there are problems with many patents, both in software and other technologies. I'll even admit that it is probably more pronounced in software. In the US that is partly because of the lack of good examiners. The USPTO can't hire good people at the rates they paid, especially during the dot-com explosion here recently. To make matters worse, Congress siphons off user fees for pork-barrel projects instead of allowing the PTO to use the money for its intended purpose: to sustain and improve the PTO.
If you live in a region where software is not patentable and you don't care about patents, you are right -- you have no reason to be interested. As long as you aren't doing anything in the United States, that is.
You're thinking like a Patent Lawyer, while I'm thinking like a Computer Scientist. I don't think anyone should have the right to stop me using the best solution to a problem that I can think of, even if they thought of it first, because I consider algorithms to be equivalent to mathematical formulae, and as such discoveries, not inventions.
No, I'm also a Computer Scientist. I'm just a scientist with a legal background as well. Computer algorithms are NOT the same as mathematical formulae. Somewhere you have to acknowledge that software is unique and nothing like it has ever existed before. Mathematical formulae are just ways of communicating ideas. Algorithms are a subset of those ideas that tell you how to make a machine perform a useful function.
Let's say I come up with something very clever, and I don't bother to patent it. Someone in the US downloads my implementation of my idea, writes it up as a patent, and applies for it, and then starts enforcing it, possibly even pursuing people that are using my implementation. Is that a realistic scenario?
Possible, yes. Realistic? I don't know and I tend to think not.
What should I then do to rectify the situation? Attempt to overturn the patent, by showing prior art?
Yes, and no. Yes, you show your code as the prior art. But more than that, you show that you are the actual inventor. The US has a first to invent rule -- only the first inventor can get a patent. If you invented first and did not hide or abandon your invention, YOU are then the one who is entitled to get a patent. If someone stole your code, they are said to have "derived" the invention and the patent is invalid.
Am I right in thinking that overturning a bad patent costs about $1.5M these days? Don't you think that scenario highlights some fundamental problems with the US patent system?
No. It can cost that much in intense litigation, but it is not necessarily so. Anyone can submit prior art to the USPTO and request that an examiner consider the submission. Cost: whatever it costs you to photocopy the submission materials and postage. Or telephone fees if you fax it. By the way, if you think the US system is flawed, try one of your Euro counterparts -- Belgium. They have NO EXAMINATION -- the patent just issues essentially. As for litigation, try another Euro nation, Germany. There, you have to bring infringement suits, opposition proceedings and nullification proceedings in THREE DIFFERENT COURTS. Imagine having to defend an infringement action in one court for a patent that you know is invalid while bringing a separate nullification (invalidity) proceeding. It is possible to be declared a patent infringer months before you find out if the patent is even valid. Talk about wasted time and money....
I certainly don't want to think of something only to discover I'm not allowed to use it because some government decided to issue a patent on it. I REALLY don't want to have to cross-check every idea I have and then have to choose between licensing the patent or producing a (possibly technically inferior) alternative solution, just because someone else thinks like me, but was quicker at getting to the patent office.
People usually hate this answer, but I still give it: Every other industry in the world has had to do exactly this. The software industry is no different. In software, people are up in arms because there are so many independent developers who write code people actually use. They are the equivalent to mom and pop shops in other industries. But even small manufacturing shops get sued for patent infringement.
What nobody has succeeded in explaining to me is why we should contemplate allowing Software Patents at all.
In the US, the law is that "anything under the sun created by man" is patentable. That includes software. Other nations have to make their own policy decisions.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
You have just decided to call software creation an industry, and thereby lump it together with other aspects of human endeavour covered by patents.
How about if we decide that programmers are a profession, like lawyers? I would say that you could draw fairly close parallels between the behaviours, and working conditions of both professions.
Perhaps you should consider what patents would do to the practice of law, if the originators of new legal tactics were allowed to patent and license them to lawyers who wished to use them in future.
Computer algorithms are NOT the same as mathematical formulae.
That looks suspiciously like an unsupported assertion to me. Progarmming languages are a form of mathemetical notation. That's why people go to the effort of proving various things, like Turing Completeness, about them, using mathematical techniques.
Somewhere you have to acknowledge that software is unique and nothing like it has ever existed before.
Before when? Before Ada Byron, Lady Lovelace, wrote programs for a Babbage's analytical engine? How about the Russian Peasant Multiplication Method (as used in most RSA implementations) which you can probably guess was originally used by Russian peasants, before they'd even considered the possibility of computers? Do the poems used by Ancient Chinese abacus operators to perform complex calculations, count as programs? (I'd say yes)
In other words, no I don't think I have to acknowledge anything of the sort.
Mathematical formulae are just ways of communicating ideas. Algorithms are a subset of those ideas that tell you how to make a machine perform a useful function.
Glad we managed to agree on that at least. "Algorithms are a form of mathatical formula."
Are you therefore saying that mathematics should be patentable as long as it's useful? In other words "Only useless mathematics should be exempt" ?
Do you think that patenting large primes is a reasonable thing to do? How about small primes?
To sumarise, I don't think mathematics should be subject to patents, and I think computer programs can be considered to be a branch of mathematics.
[P.S. you don't seem to have come up with a "good software patent" yet]
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
In particular, I'm thinking of object oriented patterns, which are the building blocks of an enormous portion of modern software. A well documented pattern contains much of the same information as a patent application - motivation, solution, variations, etc. Suppose, for example, a patent on the facade pattern. Require reciprocal RF licenses on any software patent used in conjunction with an implementation of facade. A few dozen powerful patterns could affect an enormous portion of patent encumbered software.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Can a government agency (like the NSA) distribute source code for a patented software invention without the consent of the patent holder?
Is the government immune from the rules on not distributing source code?
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
A good patent cannot be "dodged" as easily as you think. The Doctrine of Equivalents says that you cannot make insubstantial changes and claim you do not infringe the invention. So your "write it with a different function" approach may not work. Sorry "dude" but your conclusion is based on false assumptions.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
In the US, we follow the "first to invent" rule meaning that the first person who can show inventorship gets the patent. The inventor also has one year to file a patent application following public disclosure of the invention. So up to a year of implementation can occur before you lose patent rights.
Of course the MOST important thing is that to get a patent you DO NOT need a working model of your invention. You need a finished CONCEPT, meaning that you have to know what the invention does, how it does it, and be able to describe it in sufficient detail so that someone of ordinary skill in the art can implement the invention from reading your patent. That is the reason why I believe the OPL would promote progress in Software Engineering - you could compare the implementation with the process disclosed in the patent and thereby learn a great deal about the process of software development.
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Re:OPEN Patents! (Score:2)
Way Too Late (Score:2)
The only reason the GPL is important here because it is clear that SCC intended the code they released to be open in the spirit and practice of the GPL. They are within their rights to change the license, but they cannot enforce that change retroactively. The publication by SCC and use by others governed by the GPL constitutes a contract. A contract is a contract. Unless both parties consent to a change, the contract stands.
But let's not jump to conclusions (he said stupidly, because after-all, it was slashdot). The tone of the company's comments points to confusion rather than conspiracy. Can't remember who said it, but: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
We Have Already Seen Patents in Linux Distros (Score:3, Informative)
In this usenet posting [google.com] Linus states that neither he nor the FSF have a problem with the FSMLabs patent.
don't over react (Score:2, Insightful)
NSA did and still does most of the work (Score:3, Informative)
The press is constantly making it sounds like the NSA outsourced the whole effort. They didn't the folks at the NSA did a huge part (majority) of the work. It would be nice if the articles started reflecting that.
No one goes to work at the NSA for the glory. But, they still deserve more credit then they get.
Look to the US. Govt. (Also stinks of Rambus) (Score:2)
Plus, this stinks of Rambus. I expect the NSA to get pretty pissed about this. They funded SE-Linux to help promote Trusted OS's into the mainstream. Not for someone to Rambus everyone.
Doesn't this also apply to TrustedBSD, and co. (Score:2)
Cheers,
Thomas Vincent
What does the patent have to do with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm stupid (Well, feel free to call me stupid: I just read the slashdot header and not the referenced articles), but as I see it, they also used patented techology from Seagate on their harddisks during the development. Does that mean that Seagate can claim a licence fee on distributing Linux? No!
Same here. They used a patented technology in the process of improving the Linux code. So that doesn't make the Linux code fall under the patent....
Now, "Type enforcement" is a technology that dates back from at least the early seventies (Pascal, algol). Those patents are either expired, or there is prior art. Or maybe they patented something like "type enforcement in relation to computer security". Well, that was invented in the sixties.....
Roger.
GPL grants the right to copy, modify, redistribute (Score:2)
He, the creator, is the only one who has the power to do that. And if he puts a notice in the software saying that it is released under the GPL, thereby granting you the rights to copy, modify and distribute it, he can't sue you later if you take him at his word.
Real security does not lie in Linux (Score:3, Informative)
This work is extremely promising, in that it represents a well architechted, principle-driven design that can make guarantees about its security model (e.g. it provably enforces the confinement principle). Not only does EROS achieve significant security goals, but it does so while mantaining excellent performance.
Other bells and whistles of interest include transparent persistence. EROS' memory model does not include an explicit disk/filesystem layer. Instead, it uses a single-level store model, wherein the memory model is extended all the way down to disk. Periodically, a consistent system state is checkpointed down to disk. This includes not only conventional end-user data, but processes, IPC state, etc. Everything. Perhaps counter-intuitively, this is actually *more* efficient than conventional designs.
As a parting note, this kernel is still in research phases, and wasn't quite to the point where it's ready for major external application-level software authoring... but it's been making steady and impressive progress both in technology and implementation.
Too late (Score:2, Interesting)
Once SCC approved the use of Type Enforcement under the GPL they cannot revoke that use or change the terms of use same as if you purchased a product and they later raised the price retroactively and sent you a bill.
SCC approved use of the patented technology under the GPL so they cannot legally stop others from using it under the GPL. One of the advantages to this for them is that they still retain full legal rights to prevent their technology from being used in closed source apps without a legal agreement with SCC.
So if Microsoft wanted this technology embedded into Windows XXP they have to either pay up or GPL their OS.
free for non-commercial uses == non-free (Score:2)
There will be no restrictions on the use of TE by the Linux open source community
Before a colo company, or anyone else uses the technology commercially, it will be necessary to negotiate a license with Secure Computing
Those two statements are incompatible.
If there are no restrictions for the open source community then that includes there being no restriction on subsequently using the software for commercial use.
I make my living out of selling support on Free Software, but I'm a Debian Developer, so is my usage restricted (commercial use) or unrestricted (member of the community)?
If they decide to try to enforce this patent, they will reap the whirlwind.
Reading section 7 of the GPL:
[emphasis mine]
As I see it, if they give me a copy of their patched code under the GPL, as a member of the community, and I pass it on to a commercial entity that they were trying to talk into paying for the patent, they lose, becasue they are only allowed to distribute Linux as long as they abide by the GPL.
I'm pretty certain that that means that if they attempt to restrict some people's (i.e. commerce's) right to use their code with their patent, they lose the right to distribute Linux (and any other GPLed code they've patched, with or without their code), permanently, until they repent and are then forgiven by all the relevant copyright holders.
Seeking that forgiveness may take a little time (say, forever) during which period they my find their precious Intellectual Property will be worth a little less than they had hoped, given that it will have become a patch looking for a kernel to be applied to.
Re:free for non-commercial uses == non-free (Score:2)
Those two statements are incompatible.
I agree they are incompatible. It MAY just be a poor choice of words by the person responding. IF he meant that before the technology can be utilized in a commercial product FOR SALE (ie a non-linux type system, remeber we're talking patent/concept) THEN it may be required that a license be obtained. The confusion may be around what's meant by using the techonology 'commercially' in his response ie, whether it means someone using Linux in a commercial/business shop vs. personal use OR to incorporate the technology in a different COMMERCIAL product for sale other than Linux.
That does need to be cleared up immediately. If they go back on their initial statements about a GPL and source provided distribution, then it'd seem (though IANAL) that if they go back on their statements that some deception is involved. I wouldn't want to do that against the NSA, who was clear up front about the intent to distribute a product with the same licensing as the original code. Forget that the NSA is this mystic organization to some, it is part of the federal government. They DO have the 'deep pockets', unlike others, to pursue a case if an attempt is made to circumvent the original intent of the resulting code/product for which they were contracted, if they were indeed contracted as others have stipulated.