Software Freedom Conservancy Shares Thoughts on Microsoft Joining Open Invention Network's Patent Non-Aggression Pact (sfconservancy.org) 66
Earlier this week, Microsoft announced that it was joining the open-source patent consortium Open Invention Network (OIN). The press release the two shared this week was short on details on how the two organizations intend to work together and what does the move mean to, for instance, the billions of dollars Microsoft earns each year from its Android patents (since Google is a member of OIN, too.) Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), a non-profit organization that promotes open-source software, has weighed in on the subject: While [this week's] announcement is a step forward, we call on Microsoft to make this just the beginning of their efforts to stop their patent aggression efforts against the software freedom community. The OIN patent non-aggression pact is governed by something called the Linux System Definition. This is the most important component of the OIN non-aggression pact, because it's often surprising what is not included in that Definition especially when compared with Microsoft's patent aggression activities. Most importantly, the non-aggression pact only applies to the upstream versions of software, including Linux itself.
We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on Linux products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact.
We now ask Microsoft, as a sign of good faith and to confirm its intention to end all patent aggression against Linux and its users, to now submit to upstream the exfat code themselves under GPLv2-or-later. This would provide two important protections to Linux users regarding exfat: (a) it would include any patents that read on exfat as part of OIN's non-aggression pact while Microsoft participates in OIN, and (b) it would provide the various benefits that GPLv2-or-later provides regarding patents, including an implied patent license and those protections provided by GPLv2 (and possibly other GPL protections and assurances as well).
We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on Linux products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact.
We now ask Microsoft, as a sign of good faith and to confirm its intention to end all patent aggression against Linux and its users, to now submit to upstream the exfat code themselves under GPLv2-or-later. This would provide two important protections to Linux users regarding exfat: (a) it would include any patents that read on exfat as part of OIN's non-aggression pact while Microsoft participates in OIN, and (b) it would provide the various benefits that GPLv2-or-later provides regarding patents, including an implied patent license and those protections provided by GPLv2 (and possibly other GPL protections and assurances as well).
Re: (Score:3)
This is confusing... Windows has used the FreeBSD network stack for how long? MacOS as an entirety uses how much FreeBSD code? Yeah, it has been buddy buddy with big-tech far longer than Linux.
Re: FreeBSD (Score:2, Interesting)
Difference here is that anything bsd has got from big corps is under that bsd license too. It's safe to use anything in bsd in someplace else including other operating systems which is what makes bsd so attractive to big corps in the first place. Take on the other hand what Microsoft is doing here. They are giving away their patents to use in linux but outside linux, you still have to pay. That will make linux code unsafe for use in other open and closed source operating systems because it will be a mess s
Re: (Score:2)
They used the BSD stack in the Windows 2000 era temporarily because they didn't have a decent one at that time.
That has been replaced a long time by a native Microsoft one.
Re: FreeBSD (Score:1)
FreeBSD is pretty much hipster UNIX now. It hasn't kept pace. Linux is so far advanced now. Not just kernel but ecosystem and support.
I used to feel smug running bsds, but I've since abandoned it. It brings innovation in mostly unusable forms, but I am grateful when their innovations make their way into Linux
Re: (Score:1)
AFAIK Windows have never used the FreeBSD network stack. I've seen rumors that it does however no or very vague evidence for this, one example being the response to network probing.
Windows have used BSD licenced code at least for some utilities, and it's not impossible that some parts of the network stack use or is inspired by BSD code. But where's the proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Download Windows source. The BSD notice is at the top of most of the network source code.
Re:GPL is not freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was the whole point of BSD (plus no assumption of liability and requirement to give credit).
Re: (Score:3)
Your version of freedom is giving people the right to take away other people's rights by locking down code.
I've never understood this logic. Nothing from the original code is lost or diminished in any way. It's guaranteed to remain free and open in perpetuity.
I've written a couple of open source libraries, and I use the MIT license. I don't see how my code is diminished by someone using it in their closed source projects. On the contrary, the more people use it, the more bugs and usability issues are found and fixed, and everyone benefits. If someone makes improvements, it's in their own best interest to ge
Re: (Score:2)
Your version of freedom is giving people the right to take away other people's rights by locking down code.
I've never understood this logic. Nothing from the original code is lost or diminished in any way. It's guaranteed to remain free and open in perpetuity.
That is exactly right. Hollywood tries the same line of backwards logic in their "lost profits" drivel that restrictive-license advocates do with their "lost freedoms" arguments and it is complete nonsense. You cannot take away something that never existed in the first place.
I don't necessarily think GPL is bad or wrong, but it seems to have different priorities than permissive licenses. I feel like it's primary aim is to promote the growth of open source, whereas the other licenses only seek to preserve themselves as open source.
The benefits of open source should be self-evident, if you need to use restrictions like in the GPL to force it upon people then perhaps the benefits are not as great as some people pontificate. As you say, divergent, closed forks simpl
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying one country is "more free" because they don't restrict people from owning slaves.
Ridiculous hyperbole does not strengthen your argument.
Comparing my refusal to give you source code that I wrote, to enslavement, is absurd.
You might as well just put your code in the public domain at that point.
I have done that many times. "Public domain" is one of my favorite licenses.
Re: GPL is not freedom (Score:1)
Public domain has different meanings in different countries, you would be better choosing some specific licence which reflects your actual desire
Re: (Score:3)
"Full BSD" license code is GPL incompatible. Only modified BSD (lacking the advertising clause) is compatible.
And saying GPL can take BSD code and not vice versa is the same as "locking up BSD" code - except GPL fanboys always say "you can close source BSD co
Re: (Score:3)
Except the GPL can also say "Look, we fixed your bug and you can't have it!".
If I release software under BSD license, even the 3-clause modified BSD license, and you fix a bug, then you'd best inform me of the fix.
In case you choose not to do so: I can still incorporate the patch or fix if you release a project containing my BSD-Licensed code with a patch or fix.
Even if you license your overall project under GPL: the file you got that was under the BSD license, and any derivative works thereof, m
Re: (Score:1)
There is no natural law that states slaves are immoral. It has been decided by humans. And they can also decide owning software is immoral.
And the GPL was invented to prevent slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Your version of freedom is giving people the right to take away other people's rights by locking down code. That's like saying one country is "more free" because they don't restrict people from owning slaves.
That's a nonsense argument. If somebody creates a non-free derived work you have no less freedom than you had before, even if you choose to use that non-free derived work you still have no less freedom than you had before. This idea that something that you never had has been lost is trumpeted by restrictive-license advocates and Hollywood alike, as is the advocation of copyright law to enforce this rubbish you should be able to exert control of your work in perpetuity after it has been distributed.
Re: (Score:3)
So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?
Why would you want that? More to the point, why would you expect Microsoft to do something like that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?
In many cases, yes. The GPL is often appropriate for full applications. BSD is often better for components, libraries, and interfaces, when you want wide adoption, even by proprietary vendors. TCP/IP (i.e. "The Internet") is a good example of this being successful.
Even the FSF has conceded that the standard GPL is often inappropriate for libraries and components, so they have the "Lesser" LGPL [gnu.org] for that purpose.
Re:GPL is not freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
All to easy, exactly why is M$ taking this approach, well, their patents are coming to an end and the dickbags want everyone eles's stuff for free, as M$'s patents expire. The only serious response to M$ should be, GO FUCK YOURSELVES.
Re: (Score:2)
That's as idiotic as some of the Microsoft patents.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?
No, they have exactly the same freedoms. If a project is MIT-licensed then everybody has the same freedoms to it regardless of the license of any derived project. If somebody creates a derived work you lose nothing, you're making the same idiotic argument the RIAA/MPAA make about "lost profits" and it's the same advocation of copyright law to enforce their draconian business model as it is for enforcement of the GPL.
Stop trying to impose your own control over the thing after you have distributed it.
GNU GPLv3 ensures software freedom (Score:5, Informative)
This issue has to do with patent law, not copyright law. So it's important to look at how Microsoft uses patent law to appear to be conciliatory while retaining considerable power. Microsoft has already demonstrated a preference for what Richard Stallman rightly calls "pushover" free software licenses—non-copyleft licenses such as the new BSD and MIT X11 license. Microsoft picks such licenses not for some inchoate disagreement with the GNU GPL as you stated but because those licenses don't stop Microsoft from doing more of what they did with their patent licence for .NET core [endsoftpatents.org]. That license is so limited one can't do valuable things such as sharing code across projects and modifying code in ways we find useful to us without risking losing a patent infringement lawsuit from Microsoft.
In Microsoft's patent license for .NET core, "you're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime"". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.". The GNU GPL, by contrast, would have protected you from this, allowing you to use the covered code in another project and retain your software freedom.
As the article also points out, Microsoft's patent license only applies under very limited conditions, "the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you."
We don't know for sure if one would gain an implicit patent license with code distributed under the MIT X11 license but we do know one would get license to do as they need or want under the GNU GPLv3 because the text of the license says so:
The language of GPLv2 section 7 [gnu.org] applies here as well.
So if you're looking to use your software freedom, pick a license that does the job of ensuring those rights will be there when you need them by spelling out those rights explicitly; right now that's the GNU GPLv2 or later. I suspect that it is this consideration for users, plus Brad Kuhn's keen knowledge of the GNU GPLs, and practical value in licensing compatibly with the Linux kernel that lead him to recommend licensing under GNU GPLv2 or later.
Re: (Score:2)
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Step 1: Nokia (Score:3)
Step 2: Android
ExFAT parents included? (Score:1)
The fact that the exfiltrated exfat driver wasn't merged to the kernel is NOT an indication of whether patent troll protection is included for exFAT. One of the reasons the Samsung exfat driver hasn't been merged is that it's TERRIBLE. Another reason is that nobody worth anything in the kernel community is not going anywhere NEAR that driver with a ten-foot pole unless Microsoft states that exfat is explicitly included in the batch of patents covered by the OIN membership.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Samsung driver remains terrible because nobody will go near it due to the patent issues. I suspect that the real main reason is that everyone interested in using exFAT on Linux just installs the FUSE exFAT and that is where the development is actually occuring because you can side step the patent issues.
I would liken it to NTFS support which is pretty darn good if you use the FUSE based NTFS-3g and pretty roppy if you use the built in kernel driver.
Re: (Score:2)
For Me, if MS does not contribute the ExFAT patent to OIN or the code to the community it means this is a PR stunt.
The next time MS goes after someone for ExFAT a bright light will be cast on this glaring fact.
money grab ? (Score:2)
That would mean all patents. Thousands of packages (Score:2, Informative)
It DOES cover thousands of packages. I don't know the exact number, but maybe 20,000 or so software projects are included.
I could write a few lines of code implementing virtually any patent in the world and open source it. Therefore, abandoning all patents implemented in ANY open source project is effectively equalivent to "abandon all patents". If that's what you mean, that's a simpler way to say it.
That's essentially the problem with GPLv3, by the way. It circuitously requires giving up patents in a way t
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of us are against software patents in the first place. So it's kinda like a non-aggression pact.
Which requires not knowing what algorithm means (Score:2)
> A lot of us are against software patents in the first place
That's certainly true. Unfortunately, such people are against a non-existent concept. To make such a statement one has to believe there is such a thing as a "software patent".
The thing is, the exact same patented algorithm, written in any algorithmic language such as C, can be rendered both as an ELF executable (inarguably software) and as a gate array (inarguably hardware). Every patent that covers any algorithm that can be rendered as softwa
That's quite easy, as easy as compiling to softwar (Score:2)
> Go implement exfat in a hardware gate array.
That's trivial to do. bambu is a hardware compiler based on gcc. You run gcc with bambu and it spits out a file in a hardware description language known as Verilog. You feed the Verilog to the machine that makes the actual hardware chip according to the instructions in the Verilog. The chip can be made by assembling it as an ASIC, or by burning it, removing the parts you don't want, like a you would a stone sculpture. If it's made by removing unwanted conne
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me the alternative of trade secrets isn't better, remember that in many cases/locations reverse engineering something may be a criminal offense.
Limiting technology patents to 10 years would IMHO be a better solution - less advantage to patent something trivial and allowing for a faster development of technology.
It's a trap (Score:2, Interesting)
It is obvious that ms sees joining the oin as a cheap way to access the patent pool within the oin while not having to give much back of their own. Even if ms gave way to free license to use exfat in linux it would benefit themselves more because they still get royalties from cameras makers, phone makers and basically any portable device that implements exfat. If linux doesn't support exfat and takes off that would be less reason for those device makers to use exfat and use whatever else the open source c
Re: (Score:2)
Even if ms gave way to free license to use exfat in linux it would benefit themselves more because they still get royalties from cameras makers, phone makers and basically any portable device that implements exfat.
You know those devices can run on Linux, right? Some of them already do.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. That would mean I could make a deal with someone and then ignore the deal.
SFC response largely unhelpful (Score:1)
Microsoft also joined the LOT Network prior to the OIN, which also provides a non-assertion mechanism for transferred IP, in general. The SFC response in either of these cases is disappointing, to say the least. While the points they raise are valid, I would expect a more collaborative approach in the case this does indeed mark a change in Microsoft policy, and to build on that at a later stage to try and address the points raised. Many of the top contributing organisations to Linux (and the kernel, especia
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes (Score:5, Insightful)
Azure running 50% Linux VMs, MS Phone failure (Score:2)