| |||||||||||
Documenting kernel code provenanceDocumenting kernel code provenancePosted May 27, 2004 23:30 UTC (Thu) by im14u2c (subscriber, #5246)In reply to: Documenting kernel code provenance by smoogen Parent article: Documenting kernel code provenance Another aim it could achieve is to show whether a given piece of presumably-patent-infringing code came in from a party associated with the patent, or came in from someone else. In other words, it could be used to deflect liability from Linux to some 3rd party. For instance, suppose IBM (or some other company) licensed some patent, coded the technique into Linux, and their patch-signoff person accidentally signed off on the patch. They shouldn't've, because the patch contains IP that does not belong to IBM--only IP that IBM is allowed to use. Now this 3rd party sues over infringement. The lawsuit should (and hopefully would) get laser-focused: Linux would remove the offending code, and IBM (and only IBM) would be liable for damages. Alternately, IBM could settle by broadening their license to include all GPL implementations, thereby freeing the patent for Linux and GPL derivatives. Another, different circumstance (closer to the circumstance the parent post to this one gives) is when a submitter had invented something independently of an inventor that patents the same idea. The patch may have arrived in Linux well after the patent-holder's date of invention. But, the submitter may have private prior art showing an earlier date of invention. Knowing who the submitter is is invaluable in identifying that possible source of prior art. When working with and receiving patches from a large organization (IBM, Oracle, Novell), such prior art may be plentiful and secret. Basically, the Signed-off-by gives a trail leading towards who to point at if something wrong slips through.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||