CA makes a patent pledge [LWN.net]

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 7, 2005 18:29 UTC (Wed) by cpm (guest, #3554)
Parent article: CA makes a patent pledge

"will not assert patent infringement claims against free software projects using technology covered by any of 14 patents."

iamal, nor am I even clueful, , , , but.
If CA says they will assert patent infringment (by anyone at all)
doesn't that make their patent null?

Meaning, I guess I read it somewhere, that an unenforced patent
isn't a patent, it's a piece of paper.

Kinda like a few other not so intuitive legalisms, adverse posession
and stuff like that.

You can specifically grant a no-cost license, or something along
those lines, but to not agressively defend a patent, (I thought) was
pretty much the same thing as to abandon it.

(Log in to post comments)

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 7, 2005 18:49 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link]

In simple words, CA says that it won't proscecute people that use, make and distribute software with OSI-approved licenses, for infringement of any of the 14 patents in their list. That is, unless you're attacking OSS with patents.

Thanks CA!

P.S. Makers of commercial software still are expected to buy a license.

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 8, 2005 1:08 UTC (Thu) by krishna (guest, #24080) [Link]

P.S. Makers of commercial software still are expected to buy a license.

RMS distinguishes commercial and proprietary, and I try to preserve this distinction when I discuss OSS/FS -- mostly because it helps clarify free (redistributable source) / non-free(proprietary) and free (beer) / non-free (commercially directed and hopefully viable).

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 8, 2005 7:15 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

I just don't like his definition of "proprietary".

"proprietary" is the opposite of "public domain", ie someone(s) own it. In other words, gcc is proprietary - the FSF owns it. Linux is proprietary - Linus amongst many others own it. Etc etc.

It's probably all down to MS (as usual) and their advertising campaign of "Unix is proprietary, Windows is open". They've changed the meaning. We now use "proprietary" like journalists use "hacker" - in a warped sense that no longer fits its etymology.

Cheers,
Wol

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 8, 2005 8:49 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Er, an arbitrarily high number of the words in the English language no longer `fit their etymology', depending on how far back you're willing to trace the etymologies. If you go back to PIE I'd expect the percentage to approach 100%.

Language changes. Live with it.

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 8, 2005 8:57 UTC (Thu) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

Say "non-free", then. Which is what Debian uses, and sometimes FSF too.

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 7, 2005 18:55 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]

I'm not sure (your writing is rather unclear), but I think you're thinking of trademarks. Trademarks have to be actively defended against all misuse, or they can be lost. Patents can be selectively enforced at the patent-holder's whim without prejudice (mostly, though see "estoppel"). The flip side of this is that trademarks can last forever, unless they're lost or abandoned, while patents are limited to 20 years.

Or at least that's my understanding. IANAL, but I do read Groklaw sometimes.... :)

CA makes a patent pledge

Posted Sep 7, 2005 22:42 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Well, you can have your patent revoked if you intentionally don't enforce it for ages and then suddenly change your tactics.

Mind you, this is hardly ever enforced: the only case I can think of is someone who kept his patents pending by submitting constant paltry amendments for literally decades, then his heirs (!) started enforcing them, and lost them.

But it has to be *really* excessive.