Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal)
ITProPortal reports
that Japan-based I-O Data Device has signed a patent cross-licensing deal
with Microsoft. "The software maker asserted that the network attached storage devices from I-O Data Device use Linux-based technologies that come under the "patent covenants". David Kaefer, intellectual property chief at Microsoft, said in a statement: "We're pleased to reach this agreement with I-O Data"."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 5, 2010 20:02 UTC (Fri) by alvieboy (subscriber, #51617) [Link] "We're pleased to reach this agreement with I-O Data" Anyone else pleased ?
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 5, 2010 20:43 UTC (Fri) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] Anyone else pleased ?I give up. What's the agreement?
ba-dum tish Posted Mar 5, 2010 21:17 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That's what I-O Data said.
Marketing FUD Posted Mar 5, 2010 21:28 UTC (Fri) by cma (subscriber, #49905) [Link] M$ is investing in marketing FUD.Period. I've heard about people saying they don't want to use Linux in their production enviroment with the fear of being bothered by lawyers... Again, I think FSF and others should do something about it before the damages can't be reversed... M$ you really suck in all matters...losers!!
Marketing FUD Posted Mar 6, 2010 10:24 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Nope. The Novell deal might have been marketing FUD, in that sense. Ever since that deal, a typical patent deal with Microsoft involve somebody paying Microsoft.
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 6, 2010 1:01 UTC (Sat) by mrjk (subscriber, #48482) [Link]
This seems odd to me. So if we get one person to get the Linux based elements under the GPL
from IO Data does this not mean we are all ok by Microsoft? We got the stuff under a legal license from a licensee (IO Data) that MS fully knew about at the time of this deal. Wouldn't some kind of estoppel be relevant here?
Anyone can get the relevant data from an IO Data box. If we cannot then they are breaking the
If the patents cover something not done by GPL software then this point is meaningless of course.
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 6, 2010 13:45 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
No. First of all, there are no patent requirements in GPLv2, which is what
the Linux kernel uses. Second, even if there were, a license such as the GPL restricts only the actions of those who distribute or redistribute covered code that they do not have a copyright to. Since Microsoft does not distribute the Linux kernel, it is not restricted by the kernel license, nor by the copyrights of the various kernel contributors.
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 9, 2010 2:34 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] That's incorrect; GPLv2 most certainly does have patent requirements.From the preamble: "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." and later on "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." What this means is that if these guys are relying on a license from Microsoft to distribute Linux, they have to be able to give the same rights to all recipients, or else they can't distribute Linux at all.
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 10, 2010 2:35 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] As has been said here before, "the GPL itself considers Section 7 a no-op".
Furthermore, that sentence "For example, if a patent licence [...]" seems to me to be misleading at best, because there's nothing in the rest of section 7 or anywhere else in GPLv2 which has the consequence of making that statement true.
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 10, 2010 2:40 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Oh, and one more thing: if indeed it's a violation of the terms of GPLv2 to distribute GPLv2-licensed software which is patent-encumbered, then for a large majority of non-trivial GPLv2-licensed software, it is copyright infringement to distribute that software (because it's patent-encumbered). That had better not be true!
It is a violation Posted Mar 14, 2010 15:41 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That had better not be true! It's not true. It's violation if and only if you know that your license uses patent-encumbered technology. Law is squishy and intention is often as important as actual fact. If you know you are distributing patent-encumbered technology without a license under GPL - it's one thing, if you don't know that - it's another. I often wonder why it's so hard for the people to understand. If such approach is Ok for precise science (see here for example) then why it's perceived as a problem for the law? If you can understand how a single electron can interfere with itself then why it's such a trouble for you to understand how the law works? It's the same damn principle...
Microsoft Signs Linux Patent Agreement With I-O Data (ITProPortal) Posted Mar 9, 2010 20:02 UTC (Tue) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link] Since Microsoft does not distribute the Linux kernel, it is not restricted by the kernel license Wait a moment? Isn't Microsoft the single largest SuSE reseller nowadays? Doesn't that make them a distributor of Linux?
Nope - look at sleight of hand Posted Mar 6, 2010 17:08 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] First of all IO Data does not distribute the linux kernel itself. It distributes NAS devices with embedded linux. So the story includes two pieces - let's call them "blue box" (the NAS device) and "red box" (Linux). +-------------------------------------------+ - Microsoft: You can not distribute the blue box because red box is infringing our patents! - IO Data: May be, but we can not sign the license for the red box - it's license forbids that! - Microsoft: Good grief, you are stubborn. But what about the rest of blue box? - IO Data: Well, it's different story - this is our own stuff, we can do anything we want with it... but it does not help us with red box... - Microsoft: Does not matter - let's sign the agreement for the whole blue box. - IO Data: Well, what about red box? - Microsoft: It's blanket agreement you can use our patented stuff in red box or the rest of the blue box, we don't care. - IO Data: Ugh, Ok, how much we need to pay you? - Microsoft: $XX. - IO Data: Our offer is $YY. - Microsoft: $ZZ. - IO Data: Ok. - Microsoft & IO Data: and we agree to disagree about patents related to red box but it does not matter because the whole blue box is covered! ...later... - Customer: Well, I've got this shiny new blue box! How about my GPL license. - IO Data: Absolutely! Here it is: you've got the GPL licensed piece of our own glue code - complete with patent license. - Customer: What about the rest of the red box? - IO Data: Well... if you only use it as blue box you are covered. - Customer: And if not? - IO Data: Uhm... we personally believe it's Ok, but it's not our code - you've got the license from "original licensors" so ask them (see GPLv2 item 6). - Customer: And what about Microsoft? - IO Data: Well, they set aside billion dollars for lawyers... so they can discuss this question with you any time. - Customer: But you signed the agreement! - IO Data: It's about blue box. - Customer: But what about red box? - IO Data: It's part of blue box and as long as you don't try to pull it from blue box, you are covered, if you do pull it out - it's between licensors of red box, Microsoft and you, it's not our problem. Doublethink is wonderful thing... and employed by companies quite often. Sadly Linus and Co refused to try to fight it so... that's it.
Nope - look at sleight of hand Posted Mar 8, 2010 1:35 UTC (Mon) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
That has to be one of best explanations I have read anywhere in a
long time. The humorous writing is also appreciated. Thank you!
Nope - look at sleight of hand Posted Mar 9, 2010 2:49 UTC (Tue) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > First of all IO Data does not distribute the linux kernel itself. Yes they do: > It distributes NAS devices with embedded linux. So they are distributing the Linux kernel. > - IO Data: May be, but we can not sign the license for the red box - it's license forbids that! As butlerm said, GPLv2 does not forbid that. Section 7 of GPLv2 does not have any effect of its own, but merely states what is already a consequence of the rest of the license: "This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License." (emphasis mine)
Nope - look at sleight of hand Posted Mar 16, 2010 16:07 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
If, as you correctly point out, section 7 exists to clarify the rest of the license, how do you then form the conclusion that the things it says are false?
A silly example:
1) This apple is my property, but I will allow you to eat it so long as you then plant the seeds.
7) To clarify, this means that you may *not* eat it if you are unwilling or unable to plant the seeds, since it is my apple and I won't give it to you in those circumstances. Taking it without my permission would be stealing.
I see no way to infer that eating the apple, core and all, would not constitute apple-theft.
|
|||||||||||||