GPL 3: more bloated than ever.

[n0cmonkey]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1730102,00.asp

 

[drag]

Yes, because it's going to be wonderfull when some bunch of yahoos go and take the OpenBSD source code, patent big hunks of it and make it illegal to distribute it or even use it.

How would you like to pay royalties to Cisco ever time you want to reformat and reinstall your computer? Either that or you best get used to constently rewriting your code to suit the whims of the patent office.

Face it, screwed up concepts of "IP" and software patents are going to ruin software for everyone, except those that can afford to hire the laywers to enforce and defend their little kingdoms of software related concepts.

How is it going to be when "Free Software" becomes to expensive for you to use? Well, I guess our best course of action is just to ignore it and it'll go away.

:roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Yes, because it's going to be wonderfull when some bunch of yahoos go and take the OpenBSD source code, patent big hunks of it and make it illegal to distribute it or even use it.

That would be an invalid patent.

How would you like to pay royalties to Cisco ever time you want to reformat and reinstall your computer? Either that or you best get used to constently rewriting your code to suit the whims of the patent office.

I wouldn't have to. OpenBSD already pays attention to patent issues, and reinvents what they need to (see: CARP).

Face it, screwed up concepts of "IP" and software patents are going to ruin software for everyone, except those that can afford to hire the laywers to enforce and defend their little kingdoms of software related concepts.

You already need a lawyer to understand the GPL, so a couple of extra hours of work won't be a big deal.

How is it going to be when "Free Software" becomes to expensive for you to use? Well, I guess our best course of action is just to ignore it and it'll go away.

:roll:

It won't happen if due diligence is performed. Creating non-free licenses (see: Apache Software Foundation's recent license restrictions) is not the answer.

Of course, we won't know how screwed up those people make the license until it's released in one form or another. 🙂

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
Yes, because it's going to be wonderfull when some bunch of yahoos go and take the OpenBSD source code, patent big hunks of it and make it illegal to distribute it or even use it.

That would be an invalid patent.

No it wouldn't. Patents are based on ideas, not code, not copyright.

Any ideas or concepts that a person retreives from OpenBSD can be made a patent without any explaination of were they obtained the idea. It would be a 100% completely valid patent unless OpenBSD was able to prove in a court of law that the person who filed the patent obtained the idea from OpenBSD.

It takes laywers and judges and time to prove that patents are invalid. Which may or may not be possible depending on how good your OpenBSD lawyers are. So how many does Theo keep on retainer to defend his IP rights?

How would you like to pay royalties to Cisco ever time you want to reformat and reinstall your computer? Either that or you best get used to constently rewriting your code to suit the whims of the patent office.

I wouldn't have to. OpenBSD already pays attention to patent issues, and reinvents what they need to (see: CARP).

See above, What if CARP falls under another existing Patent? Did the developers to a patent search to make sure that it did not accendently violate any existing patents?

Since Cisco was able to patent their ideas, how many patents for Carp exist? Does OpenBSD have any patents pending on Carp, themselves? Mabye some nice laywer went and filled a bunch of patents for free on OpenBSD's behalf...

Do you have a list of them or something I can look at?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
Yes, because it's going to be wonderfull when some bunch of yahoos go and take the OpenBSD source code, patent big hunks of it and make it illegal to distribute it or even use it.

That would be an invalid patent.

No it wouldn't. Patents are based on ideas, not code, not copyright.

And if there is prior art, the patent is invalid.

Any ideas or concepts that a person retreives from OpenBSD can be made a patent without any explaination of were they obtained the idea. It would be a 100% completely valid patent unless OpenBSD was able to prove in a court of law that the person who filed the patent obtained the idea from OpenBSD.

It takes laywers and judges and time to prove that patents are invalid. Which may or may not be possible depending on how good your OpenBSD lawyers are. So how many does Theo keep on retainer to defend his IP rights?

I don't know, but he has mentioned previously that he does consult with lawyers on occassion.

How would you like to pay royalties to Cisco ever time you want to reformat and reinstall your computer? Either that or you best get used to constently rewriting your code to suit the whims of the patent office.

I wouldn't have to. OpenBSD already pays attention to patent issues, and reinvents what they need to (see: CARP).

See above, What if CARP falls under another existing Patent? Did the developers to a patent search to make sure that it did not accendently violate any existing patents?

It would only make sense that they did this, since CARP only came into existance because of patent issues on VRRP.

Since Cisco was able to patent their ideas, how many patents for Carp exist? Does OpenBSD have any patents pending on Carp, themselves? Mabye some nice laywer went and filled a bunch of patents for free on OpenBSD's behalf...

Why would they bother with a patent? They aren't looking for money for it, that would violate one of the main goals of OpenBSD.

Do you have a list of them or something I can look at?

A list of patents for CARP? See above.

A list of patents that CARP violates? See farther above.

 

[drag]

They would patent for "defense" of course. 😛

But then again if anybody knows that "CARP" does violate a pre-existing patent, nobody is going to say anything. Or any other part of OpenBSD (say the kernel, or the pre-non-free Apache). What is the use suing OpenBSD or even mentioning it when OpenBSD has no money?

They simply wait, like they did with Gifs, until somebody (like Microsoft, or Apple) uses the code from OpenBSD that was under a free liscence, but in reality is not free, and sue them.

But whatever. Ignore me, I've been on a patent kick since last night and I must of had it circuling around in my head for the past few hours or so and this is were it spilled out.

I think it's foolish, personally, to completely disregard the patent situation. The BSD liscence deals only with copyright issues, not patent issues, and I think it's a good idea to at least awknowledge patent issues when it comes to licensing nowadays.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
They would patent for "defense" of course. 😛

But then again if anybody knows that "CARP" does violate a pre-existing patent, nobody is going to say anything. Or any other part of OpenBSD (say the kernel, or the pre-non-free Apache). What is the use suing OpenBSD or even mentioning it when OpenBSD has no money?

They simply wait, like they did with Gifs, until somebody (like Microsoft, or Apple) uses the code from OpenBSD that was under a free liscence, but in reality is not free, and sue them.

But whatever. Ignore me, I've been on a patent kick since last night and I must of had it circuling around in my head for the past few hours or so and this is were it spilled out.

I think it's foolish, personally, to completely disregard the patent situation. The BSD liscence deals only with copyright issues, not patent issues, and I think it's a good idea to at least awknowledge patent issues when it comes to licensing nowadays.

How valid is your patent if you don't defend it? Is it like a trademark where you lose it if you don't defend it?

The longer the license, the less free it generally is. If OpenBSD added patent terms into their license, someone somewhere might not be able to use it. How free is that? Suddenly OpenBSD isn't free (as per their definition), and I'm stuck looking for another OS.

They don't disregard patent issues. They try to educate themselves, and the users about what is going on. Getting a patent, or participating in the patent insanity to more of an extent than they have would take away valuable time, money, and free-ness.

Instead of ignoring them or participating in the normal way, OpenBSD developers seem to be taking another route. They avoid patents by coding around them, instead of like the Apache group does by restricting the users. It makes more sense to me.

I appreciate the comments, it's an interesting subject, and something we won't hear less of in the future.

 

[drag]

The problem is that you can't code around it. And the BSD license isn't enough to make sure that a third party isn't going to go and search thru your code looking for potential lawsuites/licenses.

As for patent validity... It's common not to defend patents. Even in the law it looks favorably not to defend patents except if it threatens you business-wise. For example if something in Linux is infringing on a MS patent and MS knows it, they aren't going to mention anything (assuming MS is evil for right now) because likelihood is that the lawsuit will result in a lot of bad press and even if they win outright it's unlikely that anybody using linux will owe them money. It would probably turn out to be something like Linux developers have a year or so to find a way around it or if they want just pay MS royalties/licenses if they don't want to code around it.

However if Linux grows by leaps and bounds in the next few years and eventually MS and Linux are on equal ground then the damages that they can receive may be worth it to go to court.

Look at Eloas (sp?) (the plugin lawsuit) or that thing over Giff images.. they didn't go to court and seek fees and damages until years after the patent was filed and they became pretty much standards.. and they won their cases.

And the kicker isn't that you only have a couple patents to worry about... In a big peice of code like Apache were it provides much functionality by linking with dozens of other different projects (for instance with Perl for CGI pages) you could end up violating dozens and dozens of patents and have no way of knowing it..

And since software is a mathmatical thing with layers and layers of abstraction it's impossible for programmer to go up and down the software stack and determine if any subtle interaction of code can be construed as volating this or that "IP".

Sucks...

(9 times out of 10 in situations like these most parties get a chance to work things out without to much trouble, unless there was realy a large amount of deceit or malicious behavior going on.... and remember IANAL)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
The problem is that you can't code around it. And the BSD license isn't enough to make sure that a third party isn't going to go and search thru your code looking for potential lawsuites/licenses.

As for patent validity... It's common not to defend patents. Even in the law it looks favorably not to defend patents except if it threatens you business-wise. For example if something in Linux is infringing on a MS patent and MS knows it, they aren't going to mention anything (assuming MS is evil for right now) because likelihood is that the lawsuit will result in a lot of bad press and even if they win outright it's unlikely that anybody using linux will owe them money. It would probably turn out to be something like Linux developers have a year or so to find a way around it or if they want just pay MS royalties/licenses if they don't want to code around it.

However if Linux grows by leaps and bounds in the next few years and eventually MS and Linux are on equal ground then the damages that they can receive may be worth it to go to court.

Look at Eloas (sp?) (the plugin lawsuit) or that thing over Giff images.. they didn't go to court and seek fees and damages until years after the patent was filed and they became pretty much standards.. and they won their cases.

And the kicker isn't that you only have a couple patents to worry about... In a big peice of code like Apache were it provides much functionality by linking with dozens of other different projects (for instance with Perl for CGI pages) you could end up violating dozens and dozens of patents and have no way of knowing it..

And since software is a mathmatical thing with layers and layers of abstraction it's impossible for programmer to go up and down the software stack and determine if any subtle interaction of code can be construed as volating this or that "IP".

Sucks...

(9 times out of 10 in situations like these most parties get a chance to work things out without to much trouble, unless there was realy a large amount of deceit or malicious behavior going on.... and remember IANAL)

You code around it by doing your research and showing due diligence. Like you said, if there's an "oops" the developers will probably get a chance to fix it.

The GPL was supposed to be about free software. Adding restrictions and getting into patents is not very free.

 

[EmperorRob]

Guys don't worry. I have just filed a patent on making patents. I plan on retiring after Thanksgiving.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You code around it by doing your research and showing due diligence. Like you said, if there's an "oops" the developers will probably get a chance to fix it.

Unfortunately, that's not a valid legal defense. It might be for copyright infringement, but not patents.

Patents are the warfare equivalent of land mines (unseen, deadly). Not barbed-wire fences (protective, clearly-delineated), like copyright law more or less is.

Interestingly, land mines have been banned by international treaty for some years now for use in conventional warfare. Yet, we still allow their usage in economic warfare, even knowing the (potentially long-lasting) damage that they can cause to non-combatants. (The primary reason why they are banned from use in warfare.)

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The GPL was supposed to be about free software. Adding restrictions and getting into patents is not very free.

True, but even RMS has to "live in the real world". So how do you deal with an evil that you know about, that should be gone or have never existed, but yet does? (software patents)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EmperorRob
Guys don't worry. I have just filed a patent on making patents. I plan on retiring after Thanksgiving.

My great great great grandfather trademarked that "joke." Prepared to be sued.

 

[drag]

Well it depends on how they do it.

The way they are going to structure it is that it's going to be compatable with the existing GPLv2. And you know that the GPL won't let you assign GPL'd code to a more restritive liscense.

Right now I am thinking that the way they are doing it is for clarification purpose and it's going to reflect what is already affects your software.

And remember due dilligance isn't going to pay the lawyer bills when you have to go to court and prove due dilliagance.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You code around it by doing your research and showing due diligence. Like you said, if there's an "oops" the developers will probably get a chance to fix it.

Unfortunately, that's not a valid legal defense. It might be for copyright infringement, but not patents.

Patents are the warfare equivalent of land mines (unseen, deadly). Not barbed-wire fences (protective, clearly-delineated), like copyright law more or less is.

Interestingly, land mines have been banned by international treaty for some years now for use in conventional warfare. Yet, we still allow their usage in economic warfare, even knowing the (potentially long-lasting) damage that they can cause to non-combatants. (The primary reason why they are banned from use in warfare.)

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The GPL was supposed to be about free software. Adding restrictions and getting into patents is not very free.

True, but even RMS has to "live in the real world". So how do you deal with an evil that you know about, that should be gone or have never existed, but yet does? (software patents)

You get the laws changed.
You use the greyware you were given.
You do development in a country that doesn't have software patents.

Restricting formerly free software is not a solution to this issue.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How valid is your patent if you don't defend it? Is it like a trademark where you lose it if you don't defend it?

As long as you pay your renewal fees (may apply in multiple countries), then your patent will remain valid for the life of the patent. You don't lose the ability to enforce infringement claims, if you don't actively defend it. (This, I think, is wrong, personally. Knowing of an infringement, and not taking action, should be construed akin to giving implicit permission, like a property easement.)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Well it depends on how they do it.

The way they are going to structure it is that it's going to be compatable with the existing GPLv2. And you know that the GPL won't let you assign GPL'd code to a more restritive liscense.

Right now I am thinking that the way they are doing it is for clarification purpose and it's going to reflect what is already affects your software.

And remember due dilligance isn't going to pay the lawyer bills when you have to go to court and prove due dilliagance.

And it probably isn't paying for the team of lawyers that are necessary to explain the current GPL. So what? 😛

If GPLv3 extends into patent territory, it will be more restrictive than the v2. I'm guessing the only reason that would not be violating the license is because it mentions future versions of the GPL explicitly.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You get the laws changed.
You use the greyware you were given.
You do development in a country that doesn't have software patents.
Restricting formerly free software is not a solution to this issue.

Yes, obviously, on that first item. However, when you live in a country where the laws that are passed go to the highest-bidding special-interest-group of the week, and the ones paying the bribes are financially/economically 1000x more powerful than I, what is the solution?

As far as development in another country, I've consider that, off and on.

I didn't read the link yet, but I agree in principle with no further restrictions on "free" code. Unfortunately, the strength of the GPL relies on existing law, and if that legal landscape changes, then the means by which the GPL operates must change with it to stay effective.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You get the laws changed.
You use the greyware you were given.
You do development in a country that doesn't have software patents.
Restricting formerly free software is not a solution to this issue.

Yes, obviously, on that first item. However, when you live in a country where the laws that are passed go to the highest-bidding special-interest-group of the week, and the ones paying the bribes are financially/economically 1000x more powerful than I, what is the solution?

Remind the government that they work for you.

As far as development in another country, I've consider that, off and on.

It's really the best solution since you would then be free to develop strong exportable cryptography too.

I didn't read the link yet, but I agree in principle with no further restrictions on "free" code. Unfortunately, the strength of the GPL relies on existing law, and if that legal landscape changes, then the means by which the GPL operates must change with it to stay effective.

Change the license to be non-free because of lawyers? Not worth it.

 

[drag]

Change the license to be non-free because of lawyers? Not worth it.

I can agree with that!

I didn't read the link yet, but I agree in principle with no further restrictions on "free" code. Unfortunately, the strength of the GPL relies on existing law, and if that legal landscape changes, then the means by which the GPL operates must change with it to stay effective.

The thing about the GPL is it allows you to produce and market Free/Open source software in a profitable manner + it is designed to promote a political/sociological agenda, which is basicly all softwares source code should be freely aviable. (Of couse people's opinions about what is free and isn't free differs)

You can setup a business selling and distributing GPL'd software and compete head to head successfully against other companies that are selling closed source software. You can't do that BSD. Not that I am saying you can't make a living with making BSD liscenced software, it's just that you can't compete with closed source software. Not in today's climate.

This is because anything that you make and do can be taken, modified, and improved and used against you commercially. They can take your software and improve it and then say you can't have access to our modified version of your source code. A company like Redhat could never exist if they used BSD liscenced software, for instance. Maybe in a few years as more and more people move to open source software (for example sun solaris, if they pick a decent license).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Change the license to be non-free because of lawyers? Not worth it.

I can agree with that!

I didn't read the link yet, but I agree in principle with no further restrictions on "free" code. Unfortunately, the strength of the GPL relies on existing law, and if that legal landscape changes, then the means by which the GPL operates must change with it to stay effective.

The thing about the GPL is it allows you to produce and market Free/Open source software in a profitable manner + it is designed to promote a political/sociological agenda, which is basicly all softwares source code should be freely aviable. (Of couse people's opinions about what is free and isn't free differs)

You can setup a business selling and distributing GPL'd software and compete head to head successfully against other companies that are selling closed source software. You can't do that BSD. Not that I am saying you can't make a living with making BSD liscenced software, it's just that you can't compete with closed source software. Not in today's climate.

This is because anything that you make and do can be taken, modified, and improved and used against you commercially. They can take your software and improve it and then say you can't have access to our modified version of your source code. A company like Redhat could never exist if they used BSD liscenced software, for instance. Maybe in a few years as more and more people move to open source software (for example sun solaris, if they pick a decent license).

The key to making money off of BSD licensed software is features. You offer a less feature filled package under the BSD license, and a closed source version with more features for a fee. Atleast, I think that might work. 😛

BSD developers don't seem to care about competing commercially or anything. They just want to make the best product they can (and I assume many developers using the GPL feel the same way). From what I've seen, many BSD developers are proud when a company uses their code in a commercial product.