Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Patents Software Linux

Computer Associates Pledges to Open Source Patents 132

Posted by Zonk from the don't-fear-the-penguin dept.
DigitumDei writes "Systems management vendor Computer Associates International has confirmed that it intends to pledge a number of its patents to the open source community. This is a move by CA to make it clear that they do not intend to use their patents against Linux. They have, however, ruled out any further large scale donation of CA software code to the open source community as they just released the Ingres database management system under an open source license last year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Computer Associates Pledges to Open Source Patents More

Computer Associates Pledges to Open Source Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Great, now there'll be open source software that DOES really suck!
    • What an intelligent comment. This is why companies like CA are wary of releasing code. Doesn't matter what they do, people always complain and point fingers. Get a life.
      • You're kidding, right? They're afraid of releasing to open source because I think they suck? That has utterly nothing to do with it...it'd make about as much sense to blame the criminal prosecution of their former CEO by the SEC (which, by the way, is moving full steam ahead). Now, it might be more plausible to point to the reaction to their open-sourcing of Ingres, which was largely met by yawns and "Well, maybe we can fix the engine now, but I don't use it because it was terrible." But whose fault is
        • No...I think we have a misunderstanding. I totally agree with the CA of the past. I can't defend what once was. But there have been a lot of changes, and from my point of view, the Open Source community isn't even trying to give CA a fair shake. Please visit http://www.ca.com/opensource and see what CA is doing in Open Source. It might not be perfect, but it is a well-intentioned start, and it is just that...a start. I have no desire to argue with you...you have made very valid points. I am just aski
        • Dude, it was just meant to be funny.

          But to be serious, however...I have given CA a chance, in my role as a consultant, and it was a mistake of enormous proportions. Their software was a nightmare, and not even their own engineers could get it to work correctly; in the end the client had to forklift the whole thing and start over again. The only thing that saved my job was that the client's point of contact was with me all along, and saw that CA failed to deliver as promised, not that I had overstated the

  • This is commendable.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by MasterOfUniverse ( 812371 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#11834798)
    Let me be the first to say..well done CA!
    • Got to wonder sometimes, when the FIRST message praising CA for this gets moderated Redundant even before anybody else has gotten around to praising CA...

      Pre-emptive strike, perhaps?

    • Don't fall for this. These people, like IBM and Sun, etc. Are only doing this to appear friendly towards F/OSS and its real purpose is to reduce the groundswell of the anti IP movement which rising fast amid all the abuse that's finally coming to light. Their actions may appear commendable, but their motives are anything but. Just wait for the other shoe to drop.
      • While I agree with you, I think it's best to use open arms etc. It is good for us on many levels for companies to do this, ulteria motives or not.
        • While I agree with you, I think it's best to use open arms etc. It is good for us on many levels for companies to do this, ulteria motives or not.

          But the benefit is undercut by the uncertainty. SCO was considered a hero of the Linux industry at one time (even though it seems like a long time ago, in a galaxy far away.)

          So what's better than a promise? How about a license? Computer Associates should take the extra step and, for a nominal fee, irrevocably license their patents (with the opportunity to sub

        • While I agree with you, I think it's best to use open arms etc. It is good for us on many levels for companies to do this, ulteria motives or not.

          Use open arms? Look at where this gets Microsoft users, say, when they upgrade to SP2. "Oh, they say it's great, they have a new security panel, blah blah.." and then they wonder why their computer performance decreases.

          I say be pessimistic. I (not jokingly) believe that open source works very well when people are pessimistic about who/what they allow in/out of
      • If the anti-patent movement is quelled by a couple of companies donating a few thousand patents to the FOSS movement, then the anti-patent movement is seriously flawed.

        In any case, this move is commendable and should be commended by those both pro- and anti-patent.
        • If the anti-patent movement is quelled by a couple of companies donating a few thousand patents to the FOSS movement, then the anti-patent movement is seriously flawed.

          No, it's just in its early stages still. There's not very many people that are aware of the abuses of IP, and most of them are going to believe the FUD coming from major IP holders. Once it reaches out well enough, and people become aware of the truth, it can survive on its own.
      • Interesting comment. Lets look at this.

        I'm not American, so I don't know anything about this company, but what would it take for them appear Good in your eyes? What is "The right thing to do?" It's a trend to critisize companies for whatever actions they take, eventhough it looks like they're doing good things (bewear! They're out to get you!). So I'm just wondering: What are they doing wrong? What are they supposed to do?
        • If they want to give this to the community, they can put it into public domain. That's the only way to do it without presenting any potential legal problems for us down the road. As it is, they could get us to use all their patented stuff, and the pull the rug out from underneath. They could then say that all OSS is tainted with their patents. That is not a good situation for us to be in. A true "trojan horse" if you will.
      • Actually, the jobs of IBM, Sun, and CA are complex, they need to satisfy stockholders, and they need to keep moving forward in the markets. I really don't think they could ever be malicious against Linux, because it would literally be suicide for them. The bad PR would be ruinous, Slashdot would be lethal, and the stockholders would pull the rope on the guillitine.

        Even the CDDL is not malicous, as people want to believe. If you read the information for OpenSolaris [opensolaris.org] and at Sun executives's blog [sun.com], there is
      • "...reduce the groundswell of the anti IP movement..."

        The term "Intellectual Property" is the most devious of terms. It implies assigned value to ideas and then further goes on to try to restrict who can "own" those ideas. It also blurs 4 distinct areas of law that should never be blurred. Patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret. So to clarify this "anti IP movement" is really about getting rid of the notion that ideas can be thought of only by one entity and only controlled by one entity. A culture
        • It also blurs 4 distinct areas of law that should never be blurred. Patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret.

          For me it all falls under the heading of IP in the same way Protestants, Catholics, Southern Baptists, etc go under the heading of Christianity. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism(sp), etc. are very distinct from each other, but they still fit under the general desription of religion. Since patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret all describe in their own way the ownership of ideas and p
      • Sober up and quit looking for smoke when there is no fire. Can't you people, for once, just wait and see what happens? And when, after time goes by, this proves to be a good thing, will you come back to this board and say you were wrong? I highly doubt it.

  • Patents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ElDuderino44137 ( 660751 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:24PM (#11834824)
    I'm not sure which "Patents" they're talking about ...

    However ...
    Doesn't it give their other "patents" more credibility ... if we get all excited about this pledge?

    Cheers,
    -- The Dude
    • No, patents still have to stand on their own and are ultimately either settled or decided by a judge. Freely giving patents to the OSS movement doesn't affect this. It just gives us patents to defend our work with.
    • Doesn't it give their other "patents" more credibility ... if we get all excited about this pledge?
      I guess whatever any company does, ppl will always be skeptic and assume the worst.
  • Open source runs on Windows too. stop equating open source with Linux (as in dont-fear-the-penguin)

  • Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:25PM (#11834836)
    The only way the current patent wars are going to end is for more companies to take actions like this.

    They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run than persisting in a petty patent grabbing scheme and trying to crush their competitors with the resulting lawsuits.

    • Re:Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jim_v2000 ( 818799 )
      But is this an attempt by them to be nice, or is it just a PR move?

      • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:31PM (#11834924) Homepage
        There comes a point where you have to say, "Who cares"?

        Seriously, the results are the same regardless of their motives.

        To put in another light: I give you 100 bucks with no strings attached. Am I doing it to be nice, or to show off? Who cares? You have a 100 extra bucks.

        • Re:Excellent (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Dogers ( 446369 )
          But I then come along demanding royalties because I own the patents to bucks

          How do we know all these donated patents are actually valid and unique? Has anyone checked before using them?

        • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

          by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:12PM (#11835344) Journal
          I highly doubt that there are no strings attached. The only sure way to do that would be to put it into public domain. As long as they own the IP rights, there's a pretty big rope attached actually. We are going to get sucked into using patented software. Very dangerous indeed. If you want to be lulled to sleep by this, please be sure to sleep with one eye open. We are letting Linux get pulled into a legal quagmire. I urge all of you to watch carefully.
          • I agree that this is dangerous. However....

            I think that one of the important trends is that this means that we are building a public patent pool which will over time make it harder for people to sue over patent issues in Linux (particularly as companies like IBM become more heavily invested in it). Similarly, the GPL's clause regarding the requirements that all patents must be licenced under terms which are compatible with it will increase the cost to companies of litigating software patent issues.
            • ...we are building a public patent pool...

              But we don't own the pool. Somebody else does, and they could order us out at any time. GPL hasn't been held up to scrutiny by an actual judge yet(to my knowledge), so I'm not holding my breath on its ability to protect us. If all these companies perform a 180, I don't think GPL has a chance.The law and the lawmaker is on their side. They will tolerate GPL as long as it benefits them and doesn't interfere with the bottom line. That's fine with me, but let's not de
    • They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run

      Really? Why is that? Because people that weren't going to pay me anything anyways won't like me? That is beneficial? Seriously, why is this "more beneficial"?

      • Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ravenspear ( 756059 )
        I'm referring to software. Money is not the primary driving force in open source, software is. I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers with threats of patent lawsuits.
        • I think companies that work with the open source community stand to gain more from future development on open source projects than those that alienate open source developers...

          Well, no sh*t. That's like saying the following:
          I stand to gain more income if I work two jobs rather than work only one and have more free time.

          Companies who work with OSS stand to gain more from OSS development than companies suing OSS projects/teams?
          I don't mean to flame here, just don't see the "+1 Insight" here.

  • what kind of license? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ecklesweb ( 713901 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:26PM (#11834859)
    I presume that to "pledge" a patent to the open source community, one could do one of two things: either contribute the patent to the public domain, or license it in some way. I would be surprised if they put it in the public domain, because then competitors could use it for closed source projects.

    The question then becomes, what does the license look like that pledges patents to the "open source community" as opposed to the community at large? What kind of restrictions will be placed on the use of the patent under the license?
    • I would be surprised if they put it in the public domain, because then competitors could use it for closed source projects. It depends on what they are releasing. They probably aren't going to release anything that would give another company an edge over them. I doubt they're that dumb. It'll more likely be some non-importnat pieces of code for users to poke around with.

    • one could do one of two things: either contribute the patent to the public domain, or license it in some way


      They can give free patents licences to every program licenced under a free license. Every other application (closed source) must buy a license...

    • My guess is that means something like this: if one company tries to use a patent agains Linux than CA will use their own patent(s) against that company.

      In my understanding this is how the crazy world of patents work and that's why companies rush to file in as many patents as thay can.
    • I'd guess that they'd do exactly what IBM did, since that seems to have gotten the sort of positive press that they'd want. That is, they will not sue anybody over using the patented processes in a way covered by an OSI-approved license, provided that whoever it is hasn't sued anyone over use of patents in OSI-licensed activities.

  • And Symantec takes the low road... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:28PM (#11834890)
    Symantec should follow suit. Not that viruses are the central focus they once were.

  • Ingres (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tcopeland ( 32225 ) * <tom@thomas l e ecopeland.com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:29PM (#11834896) Homepage
    Speaking of which, anyone using that? The user's email list [ca.com] looks a little quiet...

  • GPL patent anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coolcold ( 805170 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:29PM (#11834903) Homepage
    the GPL patent can only used with other GPL patented product. In this case, commercial product with patent in would not be able to use it :)

    when would microsoft open up their patent?
    • Not necessarily. It is feasable that they could sell alternative licenses to companies who wish to use the product in a commercial product that would allow the commercial product to remain closed source.
    • the GPL patent can only used with other GPL patented product. In this case, commercial product with patent in would not be able to use it :)

      I guess you mean "closed" software, since a software being licensed under GPL has nothing to do with it being commercial or not.

      Thus said, the goal of a patent is first and foremost to make money to justify innovation (that shouldn't apply to softwares but it does at least in the US and in Japan). Therefore, I think CA and IBM have done quite good with their pate
    • Seems to me the FSF ought to write a new patent license along the lines of the GPL.

      We could have the GNU General Public License (GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) for copyright licensing, and the GNU General Public Patent License (GPPL)...and maybe even a GNU Lesser General Public Patent License (LGPPL) for patent licensing.

      Then, whenever a company wanted to license its patents to the free software community, they could just use a patent license most people in that community would alrea
    • Uh, so they are going force themselves into releasing their own products under the GPL? Fat chance.

  • From the press conference... (Score:5, Funny)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific&yahoo,com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:35PM (#11834969) Homepage Journal
    CA Spokesperson: We've decided to donate a number of our patents to Open Source.

    Slashdot: And what number would that be?

    CA Spokesperson: Zero!

  • Correction to press release (Score:5, Funny)

    by azaris ( 699901 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:37PM (#11834989) Journal

    As it happens, the press release from CA has a slight mistake in it. Instead of pledging to "open source patents", CA pledges to "patent open source". We apologize for any inconvenience caused.

    Sincerely Yours,
    John Swainson
    CEO Computer Associates International

  • Two camps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:47PM (#11835104) Journal
    The IT industry is really splitting into two opposing camps. OTOH we have those who believe technology should be expensive and lucrative. OTOH we have those who believe technology is sliding down the commodity curve and that the future lies in services.

    It's pretty clear which companies are on each side. With this statement, CA position themselves on the "sliders" side along with IBM, Novell, and the free/open source community.

    • Re:Two camps (Score:3, Interesting)

      by superpulpsicle ( 533373 )
      Wait a sec, IBM sits in both camps. They believe in expensive lucrative technology as well as a future in services.

    • It's pretty clear which companies are on each side. With this statement, CA position themselves on the "sliders" side along with IBM, Novell, and the free/open source community.

      Bollocks. CA's interest in linux is to sell their crappy overpriced software to run on it and/or to get people to migrate linux apps to the mainframe where they charge *exorbitant* quarterly/monthly license fees for their crappy management software.
      • CA are scum - even more vile than Microsoft.

        A few years ago I worked on a roll-out of their management software, and it was the biggest pile of crap I've ever had the misfortune to use. Very little documentation, and the docs that existed didn't explain what things did. Things didn't work, support was awful, and so on. They always had at least one person on site, if not three, and yet things never got sorted.

        I even attended a course on some of this, and over half of the course was on a little used schedul

  • IBM, CA, whos next? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virtual Karma ( 862416 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:49PM (#11835119) Homepage
    After IBM its CA now. This is wonderful. If all the corporates decide to open up their patents, code and other intellectual property we would be living in a better world. Eveyone benefits: 1. Corporates get great community support 2. Application get enhancements and maintainance at super speed 3. Communities get source and rights for further development 4. Consumers get great products and services Microsoft, are you listening?
    • Better world is a world without software patents, not a world where some companies gratefully give us what is ours anyway.
    • Actually, what IBM contributed is quite unclear. Read the revocation clause at the end of IBM's announcement in their patent pledge. IBM can revoke the pledge from anyone who sues "Open Source Software" (odd in that nobody sues software) for any "intellectual property" matter (a purposefully vague and undefined term in the IBM patent pledge). I was surprised at how poorly specified their pledge is.

      So, if someone involved in "Open Source Software" (a reasonable inference on what IBM meant by their langua
      • Actually its not even clear that IBM donated any value at all revocation clauses not withstanding.

        Closer scrutiny of the "500" patents "donated" by IBM reveal that some of them don't relate to software in any form and that all of them are due to require renewal.

        Hard to say if this is a zero value donation or less than that. However it did have value from IBM's perspective since it quite clearly fooled the credulous.

  • Public Domain? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:00PM (#11835234)
    Companies which get "defensive" patents to protect themselves from a bigger, more agressive, richer company seem to be merely an altruistic charade. If the owners ever get tempted by the money, then it will be enforced.

    If a company had no desire to ever enforce the patent, then turn it over to the public domain. You'd still create the legal precedent that allows your products to exist.

    If a company holds on to the patent, it's simply to be able to pull it out of popular use at a later time (no matter who cooperative they seem now).

    If a patent becomes the shoulders for your patent or product to stand on, then you're setting yourself up for a fall no matter how solid that ground seems now.
    • what about defensive patents, to be used in counter suits (i believe red hat has some)
    • Well, if they outright license the patent for use in free software, that constitutes a contract on which you cannot renege, unless the license agreement contains an escape clause for CA, which would lead no sensible open source developer to take advantage of it.
    • What's even more rich is that Microsoft has repeatedly claimed that its patent stockpile is for defense only, yet they are the biggest proponent of having software patents introduced in Europe. If their patents are going to be used for defense only, why would they want to introduce software patents "as a defense measure" into an area where they needed no defense to begin with? Their charade is so obvious, I can't believe people still take them at face value when they act benevolent and benign with respect

  • Tentative, sorta really maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:01PM (#11835246) Homepage Journal
    From the article:
    "It's the plan," den Hartog said. "I know he [Swainson] has worked on the preliminary work to get that done."

    Not much accomplished on this yet. This seems like a feeler.

    That said, it's only a pledge, when done.
    A promise, only.

    It would be nice to see something binding on this, or to see the end of software patents altogether.

  • Really a tax reduction scheme? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by caesar-auf-nihil ( 513828 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:10PM (#11835329)
    Part of me would like to think that CA did this for purely good reasons, but I suspect there is a practical reason behind this.
    Many companies donate patents (intellectual property) to non-profit institutions for tax cut purposes. A company can "claim" a value of $x for the patents that it knows it will never use or find a license for, and give them to a university or non-profit as a charitable donation, in effect lowering their tax bill which improves their earnings per share. This is done in the chemical industry all the time.
    So we should look at the patents being donated - are they really key patents, or extra patents that cover some niche or really should have never been issued in the first place? I'm betting that none of these patents really prevent the open source community from doing anything currently, and their release is probably a tax-cut plan for CA.

    I'd love to be wrong though.
    • CA is PURE CONCENTRATED EVIL. They have built their company by purchasing other companies and destroying their products. CA hasn't had a product worth using (aside from ingres) since their BASIC compiler. Their enterprise management package (Unicenter-TNG) requires a Windows machine with a 3D accelerator so you can use their stupid 3d network view crap. The safest assumption is always that what they are doing is nefarious.
  • to really fork. One group will use all this patented stuff, and be vulnerable to legal attacks. The other group will(should) play it safe and stay completely patent free.
  • You know I was thinking about this today before I even read this story. I was wondering why the EFF doesn't just register all the possible patents that come from any open source program. I bet if they did that and then turned around made the patents "open source" (free to use) but restricted the use to anyone not one a special EFF blacklist. That way the EFF gains alot of leverage and I bet they would slowly built up enough patents on important software advances to really hurt the big companies trying to
  • ...as they just released the Ingres database management system under an open source license last year.

    Too bad that Ingres sucks. This comes from one of the more prominent QA folks at CA.

    I'm guessing that the release of its source code will be caught by the virus detection script language Symantec has patented. The script looks like this:

    1. If suckage, go to 3.
    2. Go to 4.
    3. Alert "All your CPU are belong to us!"
    4. End

  • Before we praise CA too much... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pionar ( 620916 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:01PM (#11835899)
    Let's see what the patents are first. If they're patents for outdated, obsolete methods, then so what. If they're patents for useful stuff, then game on!
  • It is great to see patents dedicated to the open source movement. But will they be enforced against others who use them without returning their advancements?

    More important, I would think, will they be enforced against others if the others begin to enforce their patents against open source? I.e., between battles of parties with a lot of patents, an often outcome is that the patents are cross-licensed.

    I realize a dedication is a great step, but with some activity towards holding open source back due to

  • Does anyone reading this work at CA? I would really love to get an internship at the Islandia, NY location! Reply with details.

    • This may be a little off-topic, but does anyone know how a company can use embedded GIF tracking in HTML mail to potential customers, yet have a privacy policy [ca.com] saying among other things:

      It is our intent to inform you before we collect personally identifiable information, and tell you what we intend to do with it. You will have the option of not providing the information, in which case you may still be able to access other portions of this website, although you may not be able to access certain programs or

  • Oh yay (Score:1)

    by SQLz ( 564901 )
    Ingres database management system under an open source license last year

    OMG WTG BBQ!!! Another open source database, thats just what we needed!!!

  • I guess I need a lawyer to explain exactly what software patents mean to me. Have the corporate lobbyists made it illegal for me to express myself in my own home by writing a program that may do similar things in similar ways as programs written by the monopolistic corporations that they represent?

    If it's not illegal for me to express my creative talents in my own home is it now illegal for me to share those expressions with others?

    If it is illegal for me to express my creative talents even in my own hom
    • And that's the problem with software patents. It's so easy to independently stumble upon the same algorithm.

      Most of the patents really should fall under the 'too obvious' category because it's been thought of many times before and it will continue to be independently thought of.

      Hardly any of the ideas are truly new, and its just a grab-fest for companies that can afford to file as many patents as they can.

  • Thanks to CA,
    no-thanks to non-profit patent exemption from governments across the world
  • Sometimes it's hard to find the verb in a headline.

Slashdot Top Deals

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Close