Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
IBM frees 500 patents
IBM has put out a press release stating that it is making 500 patents available for free software. The patents can be used with any OSI-approved license, not just the GPL. The full list of freed patents is available in PDF format. It does not include the famous RCU patents, which remain available to GPL-licensed code only. "IBM intends for this pledge to form the basis of an industry-wide 'patent commons' in which patents are used to establish a platform for further innovations in areas of broad interest to information technology developers and users."
(Log in to post comments)
Extraordinary. Posted Jan 11, 2005 8:19 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] That's an extraordinary act.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 8:23 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] I don't know anything about special operations, butI have read from somewhere, that one of the tactics used in special operation is to provocate("patents are free", "we will not punish you", , "we are weak", "we don't see/notice you", "etc"), so that the enemy("potential violators", "dissidents", "terrorists", "etc.") will reveal itself/themselves. So, I guess that it's smarter to not to count on that sort of moves. Non of that is my ideas, I'm not that smart.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 12:20 UTC (Tue) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] I agree, for the most part. Software patents are a bad idea, regardless of IBM's actions (which I assume are revocable at any time).
It would be wise for projects to steer clear of any known patents, regardless of any "amnesty" offered. To do otherwise is to invite trouble down the line.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 13:15 UTC (Tue) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] > regardless of IBM's actions (which I assume are revocable at any time).
You should read IBM's release, or even Groklaw's review of it:
>> In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party
FYI...
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 8:37 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] I can see two ways of interpreting the patent grant:
The language in the document talks of "Open Source Software" being "computer programs", which is why I am unsure if a library would be covered outside of the context of the application it is linked to.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 8:46 UTC (Tue) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link] I don't think your interpretation #2 would be a problem, since somewhere along the way, that library's source would be available.
I am assuming, of course, that the intent here is that the patents can be used for anything, as long as the implementation source code is made available. If the intent were instead to only make these patents available for use in free software, I think IBM would have gone the GPL route.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 12, 2005 0:58 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Actually, option #2 wouldn't work.
IBM's patent licence relies on *the* *program* being Open Source (as defined, pretty accurately, by IBM).
And remember, it is the *user* who is liable for any patent violation. So any software company that tried to pull that stunt would simply drop its customers right into IBM's firing line. Just like MS dropped its SQL-Server customers right into Timeline's sights...
Cheers,
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 12:49 UTC (Tue) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link] >So a BSD licensed program using one of these patents wouldn't strictly be BSD licensed.It does kind of "ruin" the BSD license.
>This would effectively grant use of the patents for anything.
A company could write a library that uses a software
The part that spoils the BSD license is if the original
This takes away a lot of the "freedom" of the BSD license
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 20:09 UTC (Tue) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] I t does kind of "ruin" the BSD license. Bollox. BSD never granted patent rights. If anything, this strengthens BSD. Code released under BSD/MIT/Apache licenses are now granted a patent license. Porprietized derivations must, as with any other proprietary software, arrange for licensing terms with IBM (or take their lumps). If anything, it provides a stronger incentive to not free-ride on BSD terms. Not that BSDers have a problem with this (it's what their license grants, and what most of them explicitly want to provide). But it should make the software itself somewhat more tenable. I see a plus.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 14:38 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Actions may be separately restricted for multiple reasons. If you are running a BSD-licensed program using rented computer time, your use of the program is restricted both by the license on the program itself and the license to use the computer. This doesn't mean that the program isn't BSD licensed; your license under copyright law to use the program is still the BSD license. But that doesn't mean that your actions aren't restricted by other factors, such as copyright licenses on the content you are acting on with the program, patent grant restrictions, trademark law, and criminal law. You could be scamming people by running a Mozilla-branded version of hotbabe with modified images with alpha blending tunnelled over ssh, and the fact that you're obeying the BSD license on OpenSSH doesn't help your case any.
The effect of this grant is that one of the possible issues beyond copyright you might have in interacting with software isn't a problem with respect to this set of IBM patents provided the software is open source (i.e. the copyright is licensed (to somebody? to you? to IBM? have to check on this) under an open-source license).
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 18:55 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] > So a BSD licensed program using one of these patents wouldn't strictly be BSD licensed.
Sure it would, just as much as it was before! The BSD license is a copyright license and has nothing to do with patents. The big difference is that now, the patented process embedded in BSD-licensed code can legally be used for *some* purposes, whereas before it would have been illegal for any purposes (despite the perfectly valid BSD-style copyright license on the code itself).
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 8:48 UTC (Tue) by a_hippie (subscriber, #34) [Link] Can not recall anything like this ever happening before (at least in U.S. history.) Seems extraordinary and may mark a change in "doing business as usual."
Think I will try to keep it in that perspective--more hope is better than. . .
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 14:29 UTC (Tue) by jdave23 (guest, #27160) [Link] May I call your attention to the fact that Nikola Tesla donated his patents for the generation of Alternating Current to George Westinghouse.
This was an act of incredible significance. And a true precedent for demonstrating the benefits of such altruism.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 20:09 UTC (Tue) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]
Suggests that Mr. Tesla, in his beneficence, should have required Westinghouse release any patent-embodying technolgies under an OSI Certified Open Source license. Note too: there's a difference between a grant to a single individual or entity, and a general grant. For a counterexample, look at RCA, which IIRC was conceived as a patent pool for radio broadcast technologies, as a way of addressing antitrust concerns WRT General Electric.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 9:16 UTC (Tue) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] This may seem an extraordinary move by IBM, but really it fits their past patterns of behaviour remarkably well. They have released more software to the Free/Open Source Community than any other company. Ok, they rarely maintain any of it, they tend to abandon projects half-way through, those that are any good (eg: Postfix) they spin off, etc. But the code is out there.Probably the only projects I actually respect IBM for are their JDK, Jikes (an alternative Java compiler), their GPLing of their JFS filesystem, and their work on porting Linux to their mainframes. But that's a tiny, tiny fraction of what's offered on their Open Source website. Most of the rest is abandonware, and they don't even list all of that. What does this mean? Well, it means that I think that IBM genuinely wants to invest in Open Source, but doesn't really know how to, so throws out a lot of stuff to see what happens. I believe this is what happened here. They don't really understand how to invest, or what to invest in, in this new area, so they'll scatter round a total random mix of stuff. If you look at the patents, there's no obvious aim to them. There's some caching and pipelining stuff, some graphics, some crypto, some filesystem stuff, etc. They're not targetting any specific group (though the processor stuff will likely be welcome by the Open Cores folks) and there's no indication that they'll follow-up on anything they've handed out. But, at the end of the day, does that matter? Do we NEED vast amounts of extra help? Or are the scattered seeds of ideas from IBM sufficient? My guess is that it'll turn out to be the latter, and IBM will actually be seen as having done a lot of good by not trying to guide things too much. I hope SGI - the only other company that can compare with IBM on the enormity of their contributions - releases some of the IP they have. Now that they're not so heavily into graphics workstations, I'm sure there is something in their portfolio that is no longer useful to them, but would be useful to the community at large, and maybe even useful to SGI to release.
No, IBM has not released the most open source software Posted Jan 11, 2005 10:43 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Red Hat, Sun, and Netscape/AOL all have released more free software to the community than IBM (whether counted as lines of code or by the value of the code). IBM has certainly made significant contributions, of course.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 11:09 UTC (Tue) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] I don't see this as IBM doesn't know how to invest Open Source, some ofthe software is abandonware just because that particular project has ended and doesn't have more funding so they throw the code out and hope that somebody else maintains it in the case they will need/use it again. IMHO Open Sourcing is also a nice way to share code *within* a company. Intranet search engines usually suck pretty badly even in big companies. If you throw the code out, other people within the company can find it through Google... ;-)
IBM reinforces 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 9:35 UTC (Tue) by danielos (guest, #6053) [Link] IBM frees .. yes, for free software it is good, but for closed source it is just another way to reinforce patents.
Let take MySQL who sells products in a dual license model, they have to pay for patent to IBM if some code go inside mysqldb or maxdb.
The real matter is that software patents is a bad (absurd) thing and IBM just make a different use of 500 software patents, do not really frees those.
This is just a possible use of patents. Thus IBM reinforces software patents.
IBM reinforces 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 11:17 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Let take MySQL who sells products in a dual license model, they have to pay for patent to IBM if some code go inside mysqldb or maxdb. "
Do they now ?... and if those RDBMS are to run on a IBM PPC Machine, wouldn't the pledge to not attack Open Source will get more focus, and actuality ?...
I was never an afficionado of the old corporative mentality, but everybody has the rigfht to exist under the rules of law and right. So what i belive is that IBM is doing a *bold* move, experimenting new approches, trying to keep the focus that where sleeping to Novell, and frankly i dont belive they quite realise the enourmous consequences that their move can leed to... this is just the very *SHORT* beggining, but i dont belive IBM can see how "things" gonna be at the end of it... i dont belive anybody really can, period.
IBM reinforces 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 14:48 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] IBM isn't quite going to say, "If Microsoft actually goes after some user of OSS for patent infringement, we will use our patents to get a court order prohibiing them from shipping any software for the foreseeable future. Anyone smaller, we'll simply put out of business." On the other hand, they might imply it to counter the FUD against OSS with respect to patents.
"Positive One-upsmanship" Posted Jan 11, 2005 9:41 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Look for Novell to respond to this. It hasbeen interesting of late watching Novell and IBM try to outdo one another in their proclamations of support for "open source".* 1. IBM makes a sort of "non-aggression agreement" in terms of its patents as relates to the Linux kernel specifically and GPL software in general. ** 2. Novell does one better, announcing that it intends to use its patents in defense of FLOSS as used in its products, thus adding the threat of cross-violation counter-claim to anyone that would attempt an attack on said products.** 3. Now IBM does this, specifically opening up use of 500 of its patents to any OSI approved software. ?4. Novell counters with a similar offer??? ?5. Other companies get into the act, releasing some or all of their patents under similar terms??? (Note that this is specifically what IBM is hoping to provoke, with this announcement.) ?6. IBM and Novell and others make further releases based on favorable reactions to the above ??? -- *The term "open source" is used advisedly here, due to the OSI connection. **As I understand these offers based on news coverage, without going back to double-check. IANAL and all that jazz. Duncan
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 10:48 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Red Hat and IBM have both contributed patents to the free software community (though Red Hat requires that a copyleft license be used). Novell's promises with respect to patents have been far more limited at this stage. Novell has only promised to refrain from using its patents to attack Linux; it has not made an explicit grant of its patents for use by any free software developer who uses an approved license.
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 12:48 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Isn't there a case that, if Novell distributesany GPL-d code that its patents cover, then according to the GPL, Novell has given a grant to these patents to anyone who develops GPL-d code? The same wiht Red-Hat, IBM, SCO, etc.? Please correct me here. It's not my idea, it's a thought, that I remember from the once apon a time SCO related thread on LWN.
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 13:18 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] No, that part means it only covers GPLed software. However JoeBuck failed tomention that Novell also promised to use their patents to protect open source projects from outside patent claims.
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 14:34 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] As I read Novell's patent policy, they've only pledged to defend open source software that they have developed (e.g. Ximian Evolution), or that they market, sell, or support.Just the same, the actions of Novell, IBM, and Red Hat are helpful, and are likely to dissuade large software companies from attacking Linux or GNU (because they are vulnerable to a counterattack). The biggest vulnerability may come from a lawyers-only company that somehow owns an important patent (fortunately, SCO doesn't have any significant patents).
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 12, 2005 1:06 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] "Isn't there a case that, if Novell distributes any GPL-d code that its patents cover, then according to the GPL, Novell has given a grant to these patents to anyone who develops GPL-d code?"
This is inherent in the GPL. If you release software as GPL (ie you are *both* the copyright owner *and* the patent owner), the patents clause and the redistribution clause in the GPL together effectively turn the GPL into a patent licence. This is *automatic*.
And if you are not the copyright owner, but distribute code that implements your patent, you get caught by pretty much the same logic.
Cheers,
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 13:05 UTC (Tue) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] I think you need to get your facts adjusted. You're almost right, though. Go back and look at the Novell's press release. It's *very* much in-your-face to companies who wish to use patents to threaten Free Software. What Novell was saying is that they will use their patents to go after any company that tries to sue any of the Free Software products they sell. Since they pretty much include the same core bits as any other Linux distributor, this effectly defends *all* distributions, albeit indirectly and not in all cases. In the Red Hat case, though what they've done is a nice gesture, they *have* no patents to contribute. Only applied-for patents. Overall, I think this is an awesome move by IBM. I even posted a 'dream with me' comment on Groklaw some time ago imagining a time when IBM uses it's massive patent portfolio to whip into submission any company who tries to sue FOSS developers. This is one huge step in that direction. Let's hope it's the begining of the end for software patents as a weapon (or software patents altogether) and a message to our friends over in Europe.
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 14:47 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] While Novell's portfolio is significant and Red Hat's isn't (yet), Red Hat has at least one patent: #6,754,891 ("debugger system using tracepoints for computer software"). Evidently Red Hat has a number of patents in the pipeline.Novell has promised to defend the free software that they developed or distribute, but they have not made any promise that free software developers will not be sued if they infringe on a Novell patent, other than the implied promise made by the fact that they distribute GPL'ed software. Ideally, Novell will take its cue from IBM and publish a list, naming specific patent numbers and specific conditions under which those patents can be used.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 10:51 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] It could really be the start of a pardigma shift for the IT industry, as we know it, and for the Industrial Society we live in!!... time to move on towards something better...
... Only hope other corporations *in* the Open Source field, will join in that change.
Why only just now ? Posted Jan 11, 2005 17:23 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I'm really surprised they waited for so long. Why? It's perfectly logical thing to do. IBM is not on RMS-style crusage. They see solid business sense in free software: sometimes it's better to work with your competitors and create huge market then to try to keep pushing each other and "own" part of tiny market. Yet it only works if all competitors are honest. The one who'll grab piece of software co-owned by all competitors will gain unfair advantage in short term - thus hurting IBM! And when there are competitors like Microsoft in the fray "honest competitor" looks like oxymoron. What to do ? Do not cooperate ? They tried in past - it does not work. Ok. So they need some "big bludgeon" to forcefully keep competitors honest. Licenses are good and all but it's hard to prove if it's violation or not if source is not open (see MPlayer vs KISS, for example). What to do ? Grant bunch of petents to free software: this way anyone who's writing free software is not affected but when code is appropriated by dishonest competitor it becomes quite effective "big bludgeon": it does not matter if code was actually copied or not - if patented algorythm is used they must comply. Quite ingenious use of patent portfolio in defence of IBM's own ass - will it help free software movement or not in long term is another story.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 18:00 UTC (Tue) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] Nearly all the comments here are very pro-IBM. I don't think things are quite that rosy. IBM's move is indeed helpful in the swpat-crazed world of the US, where it provides a small set of patents that Free Software (well OSS in fact) is now able to use. But don't forget this is only 500 of their 50,000 patents, some 30,000 of which are probably software patents.
And at the same time, as a major suporter of ECITA, IBM is spending a lot of effort trying to get software patents imposed on Europe too.
Simply not having swpats would be orders of magnitude better for everyone (except incumbent behemoths like IBM, microsoft and nokia), then we wouldn't be dependent on the charity of IBM to write our own software.
Until IBM stops campaigning for all-encompassing swpats in Europe then we shouldn't be telling them what a good job they are doing letting us use 1%-2% of their patent portfolio.
This could indeed be the start of a major improvement in the climate in the US, but it is really a band-aid over the fundamental problem of awarding patents for all sorts of stupid things which should never have been made patentable in the first place. It shouldn't be possible to be sued for patent infringement for writing your own software in the same way that it is not possible for having orderly thoughts or writing books.
The clause which says they reserve the right to withdraw the patent grant for entities which sue any OSS entity is interesting. On the face of it it's a fine provision, but the question is, will they actually start suing, say nokia, if someone writes a GPLed re-implementation of one of their protocols? They don't want to scare big companies off using Linux, and many of them will already have cross-licensing agreements with IBM which mean they won't be dependent on this grant anyway.
It will certainly be interetsing to see how this plays out, but don't lose sight of the fact that, at least within Europe, IBM is still firmly on the side of the bad guys.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 11, 2005 22:25 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Did anybody else notice that their definition of "open source software" is too loose? It extends the grant even to programs for which redistribution requires the permission of the copyright owner.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 12, 2005 5:41 UTC (Wed) by NESAC (guest, #3813) [Link] I'm pleased to see that IBM has done this, but we're getting distracted here. Software patents are a Bad Thing. By freeing this small subset of their patents, IBM may convince a few more people that they are not. If IBM and other large corporations really want to contribute to free software, it would be better to lobby for the abolishment of software patents where they exist, and against the adoption of software patents in plance like the EU.
IBM frees 500 patents Posted Jan 12, 2005 6:39 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Well, I guess that those onetime 500 patents out ofthe 3000+ patents per year is a good thing for OSS, but useless and small enough to fit in to IBM's public relations "quarterly" expense. I agree, that those 500 patents do not compensate the harm that they actively do by lobbying for software patents in EU.
|
|||||||||||