Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||||||||
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network The Internet, December 20, 2010 - The Document Foundation has joined the Open Invention Network (OIN), to further extend the free software ecosystems. By becoming a licensee, The Document Foundation - developer of LibreOffice, a free office suite for personal and corporate productivity - has joined the growing list of organizations that recognize the importance of participating in the Open Invention Network, in order to protect the free software ecosystem from the risks associated to software patents. "The Document Foundation is a major free software project, and LibreOffice a key office suite for creating, managing and sharing documents. By becoming a licensee of the Open Invention Network, we fight software patents - which stifle innovation and encourage predatory business practices - and at the same time we improve the protection of our software projects," said Charles Schulz, Member of TDF Steering Committee. Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to whichever company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against free software. Through this network of developers, distributors, sellers, resellers and end-users that license its patent portfolio, Open Invention Network is creating a supportive and shielded ecosystem to ensure the growth and adoption of free and open source software. This enables OIN licensees like The Document Foundation to make significant investments, helping to fuel economic growth. OIN has amassed a broad portfolio of patents, including patents held by nominees on its behalf. These patents are available to all licensees as part of the patent portfolio that OIN is creating in support of free software. The license agreement is at http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.... The home of The Document Foundation is at http://www.documentfoundation.org. The Document Foundation has the mission to facilitate the evolution of the OOo Community into a new open, independent, and meritocratic organization within the next few months. An independent Foundation is a better match to the values of contributors, users and supporters, and will enable a more effective, efficient, transparent, and inclusive Community. TDF will protect past investments by building on the achievements of the first decade, will encourage wide participation in the Community, and will co-ordinate activity across the Community. Media Contacts Florian Effenberger (Germany) Mobile: +49 151 14424108 - E-mail: floeff@documentfoundation.org Olivier Hallot (Brazil) Mobile: +55 21 88228812 - E-mail: olivier.hallot@documentfoundation.org Charles H. Schulz (France) Mobile: +33 6 98655424 - E-mail: charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org Italo Vignoli (Italy) Mobile: +39 348 5653829 - E-mail: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to announce+help@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/announce/ (Log in to post comments)
Logical flaws in that press release Posted Dec 20, 2010 16:45 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] participating in the Open Invention Network, in order to protect the free software ecosystem from the risks associated to software patents. The OIN does not "protect the free software ecosystem" -- that term is overly broad. It comes down to a more narrow and arbitrary definition, basically a list of program files that are covered. By becoming a licensee of the Open Invention Network, we fight software patents - which stifle innovation and encourage predatory business practices - Fight software patents? No. The OIN isn't an anti-patent organization. It was founded by companies who are mostly in favor of software patents. That fact alone should make it clear that the OIN isn't designed to "fight software patents". I can't even see any indirect effects, such as a lot of following for the OIN having an effect on how lawmakers view the patentability of software. Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to whichever company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against free software.Only within the specific boundaries of the OIN's scope, which I mentioned further above. This enables OIN licensees like The Document Foundation to make significant investments, helping to fuel economic growth. The risk of patent holdup is essentially the same with or without OIN. Even if one -- in my opinion, falsely -- assumed that the OIN makes some gradual difference in the calculus of major right holders, it still hasn't produced any well-documented, verifiable success story, and it can never help against trolls. So if The Document Foundation wants to invest in software development, it will still have to do so on the basis of the assumption of an incalculable patent-related risk. The Document Foundation might ask itself why the OIN can't even help its licensee Google. That question would lead to the points I just raised, and more.
Press release IS overblown, but this is still important Posted Dec 20, 2010 17:13 UTC (Mon) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Florian Mueller is absolutely right that OIN isn't an anti-patent organization, and that this joining doesn't fight software patents in general. So yeah, this press release is overblown (like most press releases are). We still need people to continue to fight against software patents in general (Florian Mueller, if I understand your more recent stances correctly, you're welcome to come back to fight against software patents!). But I think that TDF's joining of OIN still helps to "protect the free software ecosystem from the risks associated to software patents". OIN's patent portfolio does help to protect specific projects, like TDF, because it creates a potential patent counter-attack. OIN doesn't protect all FLOSS projects, nor can it provide a strong defense against patent trolls, but it can still help protect many of the important FLOSS projects through OIN's patent portfolio. Protections don't have to be perfect to be useful. I think it's still a net improvement, and an important one.
Press release IS overblown, but this is still important Posted Dec 20, 2010 17:30 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (Florian Mueller, if I understand your more recent stances correctly, you're welcome to come back to fight against software patents!). What you call "more recent" is a position I already took in October 2006. At that point I discontinued the fight for restrictive patent legislation because I didn't see how it could be won without meaningful support from businesses. My position on software patents hasn't changed at all. Not then, not last year, not this year. There's a difference between what's desirable and what' achievable. In fact, I would be happy to see anti-patent advocates make use of some of the material I produce nowadays and which shows what kinds of battles are fought over those patents, such as this visualization of Apple's disputes with Android device makers HTC and Motorola or this new one that shows ITC proceedings involving Apple, HTC, Microsoft, Motorola and Nokia. But I think that TDF's joining of OIN still helps [...] OIN's patent portfolio does help to protect specific projects, like TDF, because it creates a potential patent counter-attack. TDF's joining doesn't add patents that OIN can use for any counterattack. And there's no indication any patent holder asserting rights against FOSS projects has so far been deterred by the OIN. There's enough enforcement going on all the time, and even OIN's own licensee Oracle didn't care. Don't overestimate the ability of OIN to do any meaningful counterattack even with the patents it owns. In order to really hurt an aggressor, OIN would have to be able to obtain an injunction against a key product or service. In a federal court the OIN would have to pass the so-called four-factor test and the OIN wouldn't have access to import bans by the US International Trade Commission. But the ITC is increasingly important, such as in connection with mobile and other devices. The OIN, however, wouldn't be able to satisfy the ITC's domestic industry requirement.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:29 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] The risk of patent holdup is essentially the same with or without OIN. Even if one -- in my opinion, falsely -- assumed that the OIN makes some gradual difference in the calculus of major right holders, it still hasn't produced any well-documented, verifiable success story, and it can never help against trolls. So if The Document Foundation wants to invest in software development, it will still have to do so on the basis of the assumption of an incalculable patent-related risk. I think in this particular case, by obtaining a patent licence through the OIN, TDF seeks protection from Oracle (an OIN member) and from any suits involving Novell's (WordPerfect) patents by any of the members of CPTN Holdings, including Oracle, again. Seems to me that it is definitely worth trying, especially as it costs nothing. The licensing terms seem very broad, especially for GPL software, apparently making it very difficult for OIN members to sue any (GPL) software derived from the rather broadly defined components of the "Linux System". It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Google managed to add Dalvik to the list (where it would fit in perfectly).
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:39 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] The licensing terms seem very broad, especially for GPL software, apparently making it very difficult for OIN members to sue any (GPL) software derived from the rather broadly defined components of the "Linux System". They aren't broad. In the OIN Patent License Agreement there's a paragraph that makes reference to the GPL: 5.4 The parties acknowledge that some portions of the Linux System are subject to versions 1 and 2 of the GNU General Public License ('GPL') and that nothing in this Agreement is intended to cause a party not to comply with the GPL with respect to the Linux System. To the extent a provision of this Agreement would cause Licensee not to be in compliance with the GPL, such provision shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the relevant version of the GPL, including that the Licensee shall be deemed to have received or granted any additional licenses required for compliance with that version of the GPL. This doesn't mean that the most extreme interpretation of an implicit patent license under the GPL would automatically apply. It just says that companies accepting the agreement shouldn't be in breach of the GPL. But then a court would have to interpret the GPL, and since GPLv2 only has an implicit -- not explicit -- patent license, that interpretation wouldn't just mean that you take whatever GPL'd "Linux System" component and are then free to infringe the relevant patents in any way. In particular, if an infringement resides entirely outside the original, forked code, the implicit license won't help. When Eben Moglen suggested things like that in connection with Oracle's acquisition of MySQL, the European Commission disagreed.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:52 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] Well, I've no intention going around the "implicit patent licence" discussion again. Suffice it to say that it has not been tested positively or negatively in court in the case of the GPL. Nevertheless, the language about "shall be deemed to have received or granted any additional licenses required for compliance with that version of the GPL", when combined with the "freedom or death" clause, would certainly interest lawyers for any defence. And I'm sure Google's lawyers would make something very useful from an OIN licence from Oracle for Dalvik (even if non-GPL).
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:56 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] And I'm sure Google's lawyers would make something very useful from an OIN licence from Oracle for Dalvik (even if non-GPL). No doubt they'd try. However, the ones who call the shots at the OIN are the members (owners), not licensees. Those owners are IBM (on Oracle's side concerning Java), Sony, Philips, NEC, Red Hat (on IBM's side on everything including Java and on Oracle's side concerning some issues including Java), Novell (currently kind of distracted I guess). It's hard to see that group take a decision against Oracle in favor of Google if the positions taken by IBM and Red Hat on the Executive Committee of the Java Community Process are any indication.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 20:13 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] Luckily our predictions won't change anything; time will tell if Google applied to include Dalvik and if they are successful. However, if Dalvik were protected by the OIN, I think we might see quite a rush of hardware manufacturers evaluating membership to avoid big bad Oracle taking them to court for using it in their telephones. And they would bring their own patents with them. Red Hat at least might be swayed by such considerations. Also, the fact that the TDF application was successful, presumably against Oracle's wishes, suggests that Oracle do not have a veto.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 20:24 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] However, if Dalvik were protected by the OIN, I think we might see quite a rush of hardware manufacturers evaluating membership to avoid big bad Oracle taking them to court for using it in their telephones. So far it seems that Oracle hopes to be able to sort this out with Google itself. However, it's true Oracle could step up the pressure hugely by going after makers of Android-based devices. In particular, that would give Oracle the option of seeking ITC import bans against infringing products. I talked about that option in early October. And they would bring their own patents with them. If those hardware companies just become licensees (not members), then their patents are only part of the cross-license deal but don't add anything to the OIN's retaliatory firepower. Also, the fact that the TDF application was successful, presumably against Oracle's wishes, suggests that Oracle do not have a veto. Oracle is a licensee, not a member, so it doesn't have direct control over the OIN. However, if the OIN decided to define its arbitrary definition of the "Linux System" in a way that Oracle doesn't accept, then OIN would have the risk of Oracle terminating the license agreement. The bad publicity of a major licensee like Oracle leaving would be pretty bad for OIN. But at any rate, Oracle simply has anti-Dalvik allies (IBM, Red Hat) among OIN's members who presumably have a veto right against new definitions of the "Linux System". Cocnerning new licensees, there may be no veto right for the members or if there is one, it's probably structured differently from the way they define the "Linux System". As long as you control the scope of the license agreement (the "Linux System" definition), you don't really have to prevent anyone from becoming a licensee except in cases where a licensee would tarnish the reputation of the OIN and its owners.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 20:41 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] If those hardware companies just become licensees (not members), then their patents are only part of the cross-license deal but don't add anything to the OIN's retaliatory firepower.One step at a time. It would prevent them from attacking any of the software in the Linux System and they might later consider donating their patents by becoming members, to obtain the benefit of defensive patents. Oracle is a licensee, not a member, so it doesn't have direct control over the OIN.Better and better. The bad publicity of a major licensee like Oracle leaving would be pretty bad for OIN.Possibly true. But, I don't think the publicity would be positive for Oracle either.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 20:44 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] One step at a time. It would prevent them from attacking any of the software in the Linux System and they might later consider donating their patents by becoming members, to obtain the benefit of defensive patents. This is not only speculative but it's also inconsistent with how most the OIN's members have acted so far. Of the 6 members (or 7, if you include Canonical, an Associate Member), only one "donated" patents to OIN: Novell made the Commerce One patents available to OIN. But no other case of an OIN member actually assigning patents to OIN is known. What I heard from a pretty good source is that all members had to contribute $50 million and Novell didn't have to; it joined by making its contribution "in kind" in the form of those patents it bought before at an auction and which the other members then considered to be worth as much as $50 million.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 20:56 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] This is not only speculative but it's also inconsistent with how most the OIN's members have acted so far. Fair enough regarding the current state of play, but I think the organisation has genuine potential for progress, especially given the present situation with patent bulls rampaging around. And if the OIN indeed have a defence fund of a couple of hundred million as you imply, they might even have some teeth. You're doing quite a good sales job here :-) Of course you are correct that there is no effective direct defence against patent trolls. But a secondary benefit of organisations like the OIN will be to accumulate industry groups opposed to patent attacks on free software. Once (if...) critical mass is reached, this will have indirect political effects.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 21:05 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] I think the organisation has genuine potential for progress, especially given the present situation with patent bulls rampaging around. I explained earlier in this discussion that OIN has a real problem because if it wants to obtain injunctions, it faces the four-factor test in US courts and it doesn't have a prayer to satisfy the ITC's domestic industry requirements. I didn't see any information here that addressed that serious limitation of the OIN's ability to have an impact. And if the OIN indeed have a defence fund of a couple of hundred million as you imply, they might even have some teeth. What a non sequitur. There are trillions on Swiss bank accounts but that doesn't mean the Swiss army scares anyone. They got that funding in order to pay for patent acquisitions (they've done some at various auctions) and for ongoing operations. The world isn't as simple as you may think in terms of someone having money automatically being in a strong position under patent law. Google is an example of a deep-pocket company that just can't retaliate against Oracle. I remind you of the limitations I pointed out. You haven't addressed them. You're doing quite a good sales job here :-) If you actually understood what I try hard to explain, you wouldn't say so. But a secondary benefit of organisations like the OIN will be to accumulate industry groups opposed to patent attacks on free software. Once (if...) critical mass is reached, this will have indirect political effects. Please clarify what kinds of "political effects" you have in mind.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 20, 2010 21:29 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] On the OIN progressing. I meant more members joining, which would - slowly - make it stronger. I'm not claiming it will immediately become a panacea for all patent problems (or be able itself to obtain injunctions or whatever), obviously it can't. What a non sequitur. There are trillions on Swiss bank accounts but that doesn't mean the Swiss army scares anyone. :-) The world isn't as simple as you may think in terms of someone having money automatically being in a strong position under patent law. Google is an example of a deep-pocket company that just can't retaliate against Oracle. Sure. But if you can't even afford a lawyer, you are lost immediately. If you actually understood what I try hard to explain, you wouldn't say so. Please clarify what kinds of "political effects" you have in mind. Ultimately, lobbying. I think I'm just taking a longer view than you at the moment. There is no quick fix for the broken patent system. Change will require politics. Politics requires money (did you know that during during US elections spending reaches tens of dollars per head of the population!). Money requires industry. So, somehow, a significant industry grouping must be formed that is opposed to software patents. I believe the OIN could be the seed of such a grouping.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 21, 2010 3:45 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Thanks for your tireless efforts to clarify and defend your views. On the OIN progressing. I meant more members joining, which would - slowly - make it stronger. I'm not claiming it will immediately become a panacea for all patent problems (or be able itself to obtain injunctions or whatever), obviously it can't. The 2nd part is clear -- I never meant to say or imply you considered it a panacea. But the 1st part about "make it stronger" is still unclear. I'm thinking here in terms of what sharpens the OIN's teeth. Some problems are structural and won't be solved by more of the same. By which measure is the OIN stronger if there are just more companies on the list? (The part about a potential lobby group is addressed at the end.) But if you can't even afford a lawyer, you are lost immediately. They can afford lawyers but those lawyers can't change the fact that OIN's approach makes it hard to pass the four-factor test and satisfy the ITC's domestic industry requirement. If it's about legal fees for defensive purposes, the OIN certainly doesn't make any promise to cover anyone. The Software Freedom Law Center makes such promises, but its "pro bono" work is for those who will very rarely need it (non-commercial projects are just so unlikely to be sued) and companies have to pay the Moglen & Ravicher firm, for which the SFLC is a perfect client acquisition vehicle. Also, given who funds SFLC, good luck if you have patent problems with, say, IBM. Just pointing this out because the idea of entities altruistically picking up other entities' legal expenses only to defend the free software ecosystem is nice and romantic but unrealistic. Ultimately, lobbying. I think I'm just taking a longer view than you at the moment. There is no quick fix for the broken patent system. Change will require politics. Politics requires money (did you know that during during US elections spending reaches tens of dollars per head of the population!). Money requires industry. So, somehow, a significant industry grouping must be formed that is opposed to software patents. I believe the OIN could be the seed of such a grouping. No problem with all but the last sentence. More than six months ago I looked at who created and owns this organization. That's just not the nucleus of an anti-software-patent lobby group. You might as well consider the sponsors of Peer-to-Patent such a nucleus. It's a very similar group to OIN. But there's at least one name on the list that would give you pause, although some of the OIN member names should do so to at least the same extent :-)
Logical flaws Posted Dec 21, 2010 21:41 UTC (Tue) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] The absence of court cases upholding the implicit grant seems to me exactly analogous to the lengthy absence of court cases upholding other terms of the GPL: no one tested them because every reasonable lawyer who considered bringing a case knew, when it came to it, what would happen. The EC's p733 you cite on your blog is entirely overblown. Any absence of patent license to "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it ... and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms ..." constitutes a restriction not imposed by the GPL. Pointing out that the explicitly subsumed license grant — stated separately from the GPL's transitivity — is only by inference a patent license amounts to no more that arguing that that might be enough to tempt a company into plausibly-deniable vexatious litigation. (a) I think there are enough completely-unproductive patent trolls around that any additional risk from this source is way down in the noise, about as sensible as fearing attack every time you board a plane, and (b) the whole argument presumes that a company would rely on an at-best dicey proposition to protect its patent in the first place. The plaintiff would have to argue in court that the the license the plaintiff offered explicitly asserted the intent to include the grant of that patent license, plainly attempted to do so, but didn't actually do so. Whether they did or did not believe at the time that it didn't actually include that grant would have to be raised in court. I think it would be a very short conversation. I think the absence of cases on this point is completely unremarkable.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 22, 2010 2:43 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] The absence of court cases upholding the implicit grant seems to me exactly analogous to the lengthy absence of court cases upholding other terms of the GPL Just google this term: GPL enforcement Then click through a long list of results. And then think again. The EC's p733 you cite on your blog is entirely overblown. I trust those European Commission officials that they take those matters very seriously and aren't partial. Pointing out that the explicitly subsumed license grant stated separately from the GPL's transitivity I disagree. The GPL makes an explicit reference to patents but in a way that those publishing code under it can satisfy by not releasing under the GPL any software on which they hold patents. That interpretation is also much more in line with what RMS wants politically, and I'm sure it's what he had in mind at the time. What speaks for my view is the fact that the FSF made so much of an effort with GPLv3 to address the patent issue in a really explicit way.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 22, 2010 5:31 UTC (Wed) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] I think it'd help to do more than just "click through the long list". If you actually read them you'll find that one of your search hits from 2005 discusses Eben Moglen saying in 2005 what I said today: for about fifteen years there were no court cases contesting the enforceability of the GPL's copyright terms. Now we're getting the same crap about its patent license requirements. by not releasing under the GPL any software on which they hold patents I'm having a hard time believing you're serious. No one was talking about licenses to patents not distributed under the GPL.
I trust those European Commission officials that they take those matters very seriously and aren't partial.So do I, but them being serious and impartial does not make them always right. I think they got this one plainly wrong. It happens.
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 haveThis is of course from the preamble and not the actual license, but it's quite clear what the license is attempting to do. The important part is exactly what I stated: this is the license chosen by the patent holder. I think the end of my previous reply bears repeating: The plaintiff would have to argue in court that the the license the plaintiff offered explicitly asserted the intent to include the grant of that patent license, plainly attempted to do so, but didn't actually do so. Whether they did or did not believe at the time that it didn't actually include that grant would have to be raised in court. I think it would be a very short conversation. I think the absence of cases on this point is completely unremarkable. ==== What speaks for my view is the fact that the FSF made so much of an effort with GPLv3 to address the patent issue in a really explicit way.That, or they wanted to finally silence those who have such a difficult time understanding this. I think Upton Sinclair mentioned one of the possible sources of difficulty; that would certainly seem applicable to the Microsoft employees Mr. Moglen mentioned.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 22, 2010 5:51 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Eben Moglen saying in 2005 what I said today: for about fifteen years there were no court cases contesting the enforceability of the GPL's copyright terms. It took the iPhone several months to get to one million units activated (and for Android I think it took even longer). Now it takes a few days only for either platform. The GPL also needed time to become economically important. The "about fifteen years" claim is also a stretch. Thinking of GPLv2, the first really important version, it took about ten years until the MySQL conflict with Progress Software and nuSphere. I'm having a hard time believing you're serious. No one was talking about licenses to patents not distributed under the GPL. You can't blame my seriousness for your reading comprehension problem with the passage in question. I didn't say anything that a reasonable person could (unless due to an oversight, which is what I guess was the case here) construe as referring to patents not distributed under the GPL. No, I just pointed out that the GPLv2's reference to patents can be satisfied by simply distributing only such software under the GPL on which one none of one's patents (if one has any -- if not, no issue anyway) read. them being serious and impartial does not make them always right. I think they got this one plainly wrong. It happens. While serious and impartial people can also be wrong, the question is how likely they are to be wrong. Certainly much, much less likely than partial and non-serious ones. I think the end of my previous reply bears repeating: Your claim that the GPLv2's reference to patents is an explicit license grant is wrong and it doesn't become less wrong by you repeating it. Every independent opinion I've read so far, including the one of the European Commission, considered it implicit, not explicit.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 22, 2010 13:19 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] No, I just pointed out that the GPLv2's reference to patents can be satisfied by simply distributing only such software under the GPL on which one none of one's patents (if one has any -- if not, no issue anyway) read. I just fail to see what the problem is. Either you get a license to the software and the patents (because whoever gave it to you says so under GPLv2), or they aren't allowed to give the software to you (because you will not get the required patent license), in which case any license on the code is completely irrelevant. Sure, if whoever owns the patents distributes the code they are giving a license to the patents.
Logical flaws Posted Dec 22, 2010 18:28 UTC (Wed) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] the MySQL conflict with Progress SoftwarePlease? "court cases upholding". "court cases contesting the enforceability". Please think about what's actually being said? Courts do not address issues not raised. If you don't already know this then I sincerely apologize for any acerbity, but I believe you do know this. If no party contests the enforceability of a license or contract, the court's opinion does not decide it. So far as I am aware, the first relevant case was around 2005, when the GPL's terms were contested on antitrust grounds. The court in that case upheld its terms (against only that challenge, because no others were raised). ==== by not releasing under the GPL any software on which they hold patentsPlease explain how, in a discussion of implicit patent license grants, that quote does not constitute referring to patents not distributed under the GPL ==== Your claim that the GPLv2's reference to patents is an explicit license grantPlease? "upholding the implicit grant". "is only by inference a patent license". Please think about what's actually being said? I made no such claim and in fact made a conscious effort to avoid implying it. The "explicitly subsumed license grant" is the one from the original licensor, in the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditionsand in the next section, regarding patent licenses they say This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License See? The license terms chosen by the licensor explicitly state the licensor's belief that the patent license is implicit in the explicitly subsumed grant. Yes, it's indirect, but I believe when you get quiet with it and think about the constraints, you'll see that it has to be that way. One could argue that a Program entirely owned by the patent holder and not explicitly granting patent licenses to covered methods therein doesn't necessarily do so implicitly either, because the entire Program is copyright the patent holder, who is not bound by any license they offer to others. But I say again that would be an extremely uncomfortable position to take in court: freely selecting and offering a license that purports to grant a right to modify and distribute and then having to answer the question of whether you believed, did not believe, or did not know whether the licensee actually received that right. And one can't argue that at all for code you choose to distribute on the strength of an accepted GPL. In either case, assertions of blanket "uncertainty" for forks amount to scaremongering reminders that anybody can sue anyone for anything. And that's what you did: The problem with an implicit patent license is that you have a considerable degree of legal uncertainty once the program is modified.(emphasis yours) I see now that the EC did not, as you claimed they did, raise or recognize "that factor" of blanket uncertainty. They very specifically raised the issue of adding new implementations of patented methods. I think that would be an interesting discussion to have, with you or anyone, but I'm not going to start it or continue it here because the waters have been too muddied by oversight and inattention.
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 20, 2010 17:31 UTC (Mon) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
Looks like they took PJ's advise.
Sensible.
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 20, 2010 17:40 UTC (Mon) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
Quote from Simon Phipps
"Smart move here by joining now, they gain access to all those patents belonging to Novell that will leave the pool and belong (among others) to Microsoft and Oracle when the acquisition by AttachMate closes. Given Novell's software portfolio, there's a chance some of those are highly relevant. Now OIN needs to update its software list to include LibreOffice."
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 20, 2010 18:43 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Simon Phipps' company is also an OIN licensee. Neither his company's nor The Document Foundation's decision is a substitute for a verifiable OIN success story.
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 21, 2010 20:50 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The real success stories are things that don't happen: a patent-holder deciding not to take an action because of the possibilities of negative consequences. What kind of "verifiable success story" are you looking for? Prevailing in a legal confrontation? That would be a Pyrrhic victory, because lawyers are so expensive. Seeing a party declare that they were going to sue the Foo Project, but backed off because of the OIN patent pool? That will never happen. OIN can only serve as a deterrent.Yes, it would be better for all if we didn't have to worry about software patents, but until that day happens I'm glad that a whole bunch of parties with extensive patent pools have legally bound themselves not to sue a number of critical free software projects.
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 22, 2010 2:35 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] The real success stories are things that don't happen: a patent-holder deciding not to take an action because of the possibilities of negative consequences. There's already been enough patent enforcement involving alleged infringements by Linux -- without signs of slowing down -- that the theory of enforcement not happening in the first place isn't a credible success story for the OIN. Also, if a patent holder can bring about "negative consequences", you can be sure that sooner or later someone will take his chances anyway and then the presumed deterrent faces a moment of truth. hat kind of "verifiable success story" are you looking for? Prevailing in a legal confrontation? That would be a Pyrrhic victory, because lawyers are so expensive. OIN received $50 million from 5 companies initially (all but Novell, which contributed the Commerce One patents), plus an unspecified additional (but smaller) amount from Canonical. Patent enforcement is costly but not when you have that kind of a war chest. OIN can only serve as a deterrent. It's one of three things it tries to be. I explained all three at the start of this post. On two earlier occasions in this discussion I pointed out that in order to be a deterrent, the OIN needs to be able to bring about injunctions or, which in some cases is a faster track to the equivalent of an injunction, ITC import bans. I pointed out that the four-factor test under US case law would be a huge hurdle for OIN and the ITC's domestic industry requirement, an insurmountable one. So the OIN's ability to be a deterrent is limited, and no one in this discussion (further above if you look at the whole page related to the same article) presented a theory as to how the OIN would obtain an injunction or import ban. That means a lot of people's assumption of the OIN being a "deterrent" is just a result of the OIN's direct and indirect propaganda and well-meaning people's wishful thinking. But it's not based on facts. [...] I'm glad that a whole bunch of parties with extensive patent pools have legally bound themselves not to sue a number of critical free software projects. It's important to mention two important limitations: (i) to get the benefit of that kind of commitment (which is not a pledge to the public), companies or other entities must join the OIN and commit themselves to its unbalanced, dangerous terms, which could be used against them for competitive purposes, and (ii) since the definition of the "Linux System" is as arbitrary as I explained, there isn't enough of an assurance that what is protected today will (in a future version) be protected in the future.
The Document Foundation joins Open Invention Network Posted Dec 22, 2010 13:25 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] To be a credible deterrent, the OIN just has to be in position to do something, not only directly shut the offender's business down. Besides, having the top heavyweights as members (and others as licensees) means that they are (at least to some extent) commited to defending Linux, so that serves as an indirect deterrent. Having a pool of patents you can use freely is always useful, regardless of possible retaliation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||