This clears nothing up [LWN.net]

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:47 UTC (Tue) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

The patent "agreement" covers packages distributed by Novell which includes GPL'd code. Novell purchased blanket patent protection for these packages from a single patent holder. Denying the "agreement" is a license (permission to use) does not change the effect of the agreement. Novell's statements that "[...] Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents" does not change the fact that entering into such an agreement with Microsoft while specifying packages that are covered by that agreement which include GPL'd code is an implicit acknowledgement of patent infringement.

Novell purchased the patent license on behalf of Novell's customers. Novell's customers cannot pass that license along when the customers distribute the GPL code received from Novell. This is not the same as the indemnification sold by, e.g., Red Hat. Red Hat is selling a warranty, as provided for in the GPL. Novell is selling a specific patent holder's promise not to sue, also known as a license, which is a grant of permission to use any patents, regardless of validity, that the specific patent holder may have that read on the packages distributed by Novell.

The agreement's blanket coverage for any and all patents held by the patent holder is not equal in its coverage for all persons included. It divides the people it covers into end users and developers. It further divides developers into commercial and non-commercial. It is an inequitable license, which goes against the intent and purpose of the GPL even though it covers packages which include GPL'd code.

Novell has enhanced Microsoft's FUD machine. Novell has purchased rights for its customers from a single patent holder. Novell's customers cannot pass those rights along with the code those customers redistribute. Novell has purchased a license from Microsoft which flies in the face of the intent and purpose of the GPL:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
-- Preamble, GNU GPL

Novell's purchase of a non-distributable patent license from a single patent holder, which covers packages that include GPL'd code, named by Novell, is a violation of the intent and purpose of the GPL.

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:32 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

"the fact that entering into such an agreement [...] is an implicit acknowledgement of patent infringement."

Even repeating that endlessly and ignoring all counter arguments does not make this a fact.

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:54 UTC (Tue) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link]

Even Microsoft has released a press announcement to the effect that Novell did not acknowledge any such thing.

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 29, 2006 3:02 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

Even repeating that endlessly and ignoring all counter arguments does not make this a fact.

Selective quoting out of context does not refute the statement.

Novell will be paying Microsoft for 5 years. Novell has named packages that are covered by the patent agreement. Those packages include code released under the GPL. What is Novell paying for? For Microsoft to not sue Novell's customers over non-infringement of non-existent patents? How much of each payment by Novell's customers is devoted to this protection payment for the non-license for non-infringement of non-patents?

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 29, 2006 11:26 UTC (Wed) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

I wonder why you try so hard to see an admission by Novell, when even Microsoft says that there isn't. And they would profit immensely from one. What do you get out of it?

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 29, 2006 15:29 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

I wonder why you try so hard to see an admission by Novell, when even Microsoft says that there isn't. And they would profit immensely from one. What do you get out of it?

I wonder why you try so hard to rationalize the agreement. I wonder what you get out of it.

The patent agreement between Novell and Microsoft is wrong insofar as it encompasses GPL code distributed by Novell or Novell's customers. It conflicts with the intent and purpose of the GPL. In fact, it fits the situation anticipated by the GPL in 1991:

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.
-- Preamble, GNU GPL

The only "admission by Novell" that I seek is that the patent agreement is wrong where it includes GPL'd code and is wrong where it imposes extra conditions on users (the divisive distinctions between commercial and non-commercial, developers and "end users"). Novell and Microsoft should go back to the table and correct this agreement.