Changes to the Novell patent deal [LWN.net]

The US Department of Justice has put out a press release describing some changes to the CPTN patent deal (part of the Novell acquisition) meant to minimize the adverse effects on free software. Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear what those changes mean. "All of the Novell patents will be acquired subject to the GNU General Public License, Version 2, a widely adopted open-source license, and the Open Invention Network (OIN) License, a significant license for the Linux System." (Thanks to Armijn Hemel).

to post comments

Changes to the Novell patent deal

Posted Apr 20, 2011 16:37 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (7 responses)

The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) also cleared the deal and issued a statement that's materially consistent with that of the DoJ.

The subject-to-GPL requirement is unclear. Just like the European Commission in a procurement policy context, the DoJ does not appear to rule out the possibility of patent royalties being collected on GPL'd software, provided that such deal structures are GPL-compatible (some royalty-bearing license deals such as Red Hat's FireStar/Datatern deal are known to be perfectly reconcilable with the GPL while others may not be).

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 20, 2011 17:44 UTC (Wed) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link] (5 responses)

OIN licenses are royalty-free to members, at least to the list of packages covered by the OIN agreement. So, since OIN has a license to the patents, OIN members won't need to pay royalties for OIN-covered packages. Not every package found in every Linux distribution are covered by OIN, so it's not a blanket statement. For example, as of today, libav/ffmpeg are not in the OIN list of Linux packages. It's not clear how packages get added to OIN's definition of a Linux system, so it's possible that other packages could be added in the future, but OIN members appear to be able to opt out, both as members, and to additional packages, at the time packages are added.

Non-OIN members aren't covered by the OIN patent licenses except to the extent they acquire from an OIN member for internal use, but charging a royalty fee to a non-OIN member to redistribute would make it impossible for the OIN members to distribute the same package under GPL. The OIN phrasing seems a bit seems a bit weak in the treatment of redistribution. In theory, a non-OIN member redistributing something obtained from an OIN member could be sued for infringement by the new patent owner, but that would also make it impossible for anyone to distribute that GPL package. One would hope that this is the wording which got cleaned up in the DoJ agreement, and the reference to GPL.

For non-GPL licensed OIN packages, all bets are off for non-OIN members' ability to redistribute those packages, both in the OIN license, and the DoJ agreement, if such package infringes one of the transferred patents. But, that encourages those non-OIN distributors to join OIN.

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 20, 2011 17:47 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

"charging a royalty fee to a non-OIN member to redistribute would make it impossible for the OIN members to distribute the same package under GPL"

I just linked to an example of a royalty deal that didn't prevent distribution under the GPL (Red Hat/FireStar).

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 21, 2011 0:04 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Judging by a number of sources (including the article that you link to), Red Hat's settlement with FireStar included a license that would allow all downstream recipients to get the same rights Red Hat got; otherwise people like Eben Moglen never would have blessed this. If the deal didn't cover the GPL rights of downstream users it wouldn't be valid. It appears that Firestar settled for one bite and, in exchange, licensed their patent(s) for GPL distribution. Without such a deal, Red Hat would be in violation of the following language:

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.

Part of the reason for your negative reputation, Florian, is that you don't explain issues like this clearly, but instead almost always interpret any unknowns as a reason for fear.

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 21, 2011 8:24 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

It is very difficult, conceptually, to regard any patent licensing deal that allows GPL compliance as a "royalty payment deal", since any useful definition of the term "royalties" implies ongoing payments based on usage volume or derived revenue.

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 21, 2011 18:12 UTC (Thu) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

"charging a royalty fee to a non-OIN member to redistribute would make it impossible for the OIN members to distribute the same package under GPL"
I just linked to an example of a royalty deal that didn't prevent distribution under the GPL (Red Hat/FireStar).

FireStar isn't an OIN member, Red Hat is.

OIN licenses are royalty-free

Posted Apr 21, 2011 11:54 UTC (Thu) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]

In particular, the Red Hat Firestar deal is "a perpetual, fully paid-up, royalty-free, irrevocable worldwide license of the Licensed Patents for any and all purposes . . . ." (source: http://press.redhat.com/about/news/blog/a-readers-guide-t...)

From the same page: "In the agreement, we obtained coverage not only for Red Hat, but also for upstream and downstream members of the community involved in developing, using, modifying, and distributing code included in Red Hats products and in the community projects that Red Hat sponsors, including Fedora. We demonstrated that it is possible to satisfy the letter and spirit of GPL licensing in resolving patent litigation. "

So looks like Red Hat made a one-time payment that then covers everyone. Fully compatible with the GPL - since everyone now can pass on thier rights.

Changes to the Novell patent deal

Posted Apr 21, 2011 16:46 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Oh, come on already. You are quoting yourself as the authoritative source again, and what you do say there is (yet again) completely wrong/backwards. Yes, Red Hat did pay for a license for everybody that gets/uses the source under GPL. Nowhere does GPL say that you have to own all relevant patents, it says that everybody must get the same rights (no restrictions allowed). That is exactly what is going on here.

Changes to the Novell patent deal

Posted Apr 20, 2011 21:06 UTC (Wed) by jwildeboer (guest, #55642) [Link]

It is FTW. No matter what spin Florian puts on it. The authorities both in US and Germany have shown great interest in the whole FOSS v Closed ecosystem, they listened, they learned, they decided. This is huge. This is not aminor change, this is not rubberstamping. This is meant to make sure there is a level playing field for FOSS.

Yep, I am happy to hear this, but I will wait for the detailed documents before I start partying.

Jan

Mr Mueller

Posted Apr 21, 2011 19:56 UTC (Thu) by alvieboy (guest, #51617) [Link]

Come on guys,

It looks like Mr. Florian Mueller can't write a single character without many objecting to his post, due to A, due to B, so on.

He's obviously feeling important now, since you all cannot refrain commenting to his posts.

There's a saying over here that reads something like this: "Say bad things about me, but do say things about me".

You all are just boosting his ego. Which, I presume, is the last thing you want to.

Changes to the Novell patent deal

Posted Apr 22, 2011 20:49 UTC (Fri) by davide.del.vento (subscriber, #59196) [Link]

FSF has an interesting post about this issue:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/good-news-about-the-no...