| |||||||||||||
Patent threats?!Patent threats?!Posted Jul 20, 2009 16:56 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Microsoft contributes Hyper-V drivers to the kernel by drag Parent article: Microsoft contributes Hyper-V drivers to the kernel
Microsoft GPLv2'd this, this means they can't turn around and assert any of their patents against this particular code (or derivatives). Besides, it would make very little sense... (OK, OK; I've followed the SCO saga, so I know sometimes logic has extremely little impact on company behaviour...)
(Log in to post comments)
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 17:15 UTC (Mon) by davi (guest, #18853) [Link] Microsoft GPLv2'd this, this means they can't turn around and assert any of their patents against this particular code (or derivatives). Unfortunately all that patch and the Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 in fact, not GPLv3. So it is because it is not protected against patent attacks. I hope the GNU Hurd kernel will be licensed under GPLv3 _or later_ so we do not have this problem in future.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 17:30 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> Unfortunately all that patch and the Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 in fact, not GPLv3. So it is because it is not protected against patent attacks.
GPLv2 patent licensing is 'implicant', not 'explicit' like it is under the GPLv3. Microsoft is given you permission to use the code under the terms of the GPL and as long as you use it under those terms then you'll be fine.
If I gave you a bunch of code, said your allowed to use it on a commercial product, then after you released the product turn around and sue you for patent violations based on the code I gave you... then that is something that would not stand up in court.
> I hope the GNU Hurd kernel will be licensed under GPLv3 _or later_ so we do not have this problem in future.
It has been under development for 19 years and has only managed to achieve the most basic compatibility with real computers.. at which point it was scrapped and started over again with a new Microkernel core. Started off with Mach, then onto L4, then possibly onto Coyotos (too bad Microsoft bought out the developer for that Microkernel) and possibly other L4 variants or Viengoos thingie.
I think that at point we have a better chance that USA will dissolve it's patent system then HURD ever being competitive with Linux.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 17:46 UTC (Mon) by davi (guest, #18853) [Link]
> > Unfortunately all that patch and the Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 in fact, not GPLv3. So it is because it is not protected against patent attacks.
> > GPLv2 patent licensing is 'implicant', not 'explicit' like it is under the GPLv3.
I presume you mean "implicit".
There is no implied patent license in GPLv2. Claiming the GPLv2 has a patent license is wishful thinking. I think you are misreading section 7 of the GPLv2.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:33 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
The authors of the license disagree with you on that
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
"GPLv3 also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement."
Patent licenses Posted Jul 20, 2009 19:35 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If Microsoft starts distributing the Linux kernel, things could indeed take an interesting turn of events: by distributing VFAT code they would be giving an implicit patent license to all Linux users. I bet they have already found this, so they will probably not distribute it as a whole.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 19:44 UTC (Mon) by davi (guest, #18853) [Link]
You seems right about "implicit"! I was mistaken, sorry.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:35 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> I presume you mean "implicit".
Yes, Thank you.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 23:17 UTC (Mon) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
> There is no implied patent license in GPLv2. Claiming the GPLv2 has a patent license is wishful thinking.
Not only does the FSF disagree with you, as rahulsundaram points out above, but so did an independent legal firm (Fenwick & West LLP), who concluded that: "...it is reasonable to conclude that the implied license defense is available and tenable for a defendant in a patent suit involving software released under the GPL [v2.0]".
Source: www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 22:28 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] [...] that is something that would not stand up in court.Maybe not, but the workings of the U.S. judicial system guarantee that it could take years, and (optimistically) tens of thousands of dollars. For many people, the difference between this and losing is negligible.
Hurd facts (was: Patent threats?!) Posted Jul 21, 2009 2:49 UTC (Tue) by antrik (guest, #40693) [Link]
> It has been under development for 19 years and has only managed to achieve the most basic compatibility with real computers..
Indeed, hardware support in the Hurd is presently extremely poor. This could be fixed in a reasonable amount of time though, if people cared...
(Most do not care at this point, as they prefer running it in VMs anyways.)
This is *not* the biggest challange.
> at which point it was scrapped and started over again with a new Microkernel core. Started off with Mach, then onto L4, then possibly onto Coyotos (too bad Microsoft bought out the developer for that Microkernel) and possibly other L4 variants or Viengoos thingie.
It was *not* scrapped. What did happen is that *some* developers started exploring new designs based on different microkernels.
Hurd/L4 was first, and went all the way up to a half-working prototype (remember the "banner" news?... ;-) ), before the developers realized that L4 is not suitable after all...
Then they mused about some other kernels that seemed more suitable -- mostly Coyotos. But that turned out problematic too, and was abandoned before any code got written. (*Long* before Shapiro gave up on Coyotos and went to Microsoft.)
Finally, they concluded that microkernel design and system design are too closely interlocked to reuse someone else's kernel -- creating a good system architecture requires a microkernel specifically designed for it. Viengoos is essentially the consequence of this realization.
All this time, other people continue to improve the existing Hurd implementation on top of Mach. It is totally unaffected by these experimentations -- aside from many people being confused and incorrectly believing it was abandoned...
> I think that at point we have a better chance that USA will dissolve it's patent system then HURD ever being competitive with Linux.
Nobody in his right mind would seriously expect the Hurd to become "competitive" with Linux in terms of performance, hardware support etc.
It is quite realistic though to become *good enough*, so that interested people can use it without problems, if they are willing to forsake a little performance etc. in favor of other properties. Some might prefer it because of the GPLv3 option. Some might prefer it because of the possibilities offered by the different architecture.
That's all we really hope for -- world domination is *not* a must to make the project worthwhile...
It's non-started like openbsd then Posted Jul 21, 2009 7:22 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Nobody in his right mind would seriously expect the Hurd to become "competitive" with Linux in terms of performance, hardware support etc. Why the hell not? It is quite realistic though to become *good enough*, so that interested people can use it without problems, if they are willing to forsake a little performance etc. in favor of other properties. If we are talking about "a little performace etc" it means the thing is competive. Being competive does not mean "being better by all metrics". It means "being better in some areas while not too much worse in other ones". A lot of people are ready to concede 10% for better security or flexibility, for example, but very few are ready to get 10x slowdown... Heck - that's why we've switched from a.out to elf many years ago! Some might prefer it because of the GPLv3 option. Microsoft works on that but then it's hard even for Microsoft...
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 21:53 UTC (Mon) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
The Slashdot Sam Ramji says:
Our use of the GPLv2 license, as requested by the Linux community, means we will not charge a royalty or assert any patents covering the driver code we are contributing.
Sam
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1308785&cid=...
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 22:32 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] [...] we will not charge a royalty or assert any patentsCan I have that in writing, please?
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 23:23 UTC (Mon) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
>> [...] we will not charge a royalty or assert any patents
> Can I have that in writing, please?
Sure, here you go: www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html .
Royalties are obvious. The implicit patent license given by releasing code under GPL 2 is less so, but is discussed in the thread above.
|
|||||||||||||