|
|
| Sun Begins to Respond to Patent Questions |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 02:43 AM EST
|
Sun has now responded to requests for clarification and criticism of their patent grant of the 1600 patents. First there was Dan Ravicher's Open Letter [PDF], and next Richard Stallman, and Bruce Perens and now Eben Moglen tells Stephen Shankland he agrees with Ravicher's position. So Sun is now reacting and saying that use of the patents outside of Solaris is OK, but there is no legal language to support that position yet:
"The server and software company clarified its position somewhat on Monday. 'Clearly we have no intention of suing open-source developers,' said Tom Goguen, head of Solaris marketing. However, he added, 'We haven't put together a fancy pledge on our Web site' to that effect.
"Some kind of pledge is possible, Goguen said: 'We're definitely looking into what would make sense and what would make the community feel more comfortable with the patent grant we have made available.'" What would make the community feel more comfortable would be legal language they could rely on. It doesn't need to be fancy, just clear. I'm sure Sun has no trouble with the concept of wanting legal matters set in writing that both sides comprehend and can legally rely on. I am positive they wouldn't enter into any agreement without such guarantees in writing for itself. Why should the community receive less?
IBM's Bob Sutor on his blog has also raised questions about the patents:
"First of all, bravo! Open is good and Sun clearly picked up on the intention of IBM's patent pledge on January 11 about how this can lead to innovation. (Also see this link for some background on why this is important.) We're very happy people are joining us in this sort of action. Really. Honest.
"But ... and this is important ... as far as I understand it, Sun is NOT pledging these patents for use in any open source project as we did. Our language was The pledge is applicable to any individual, community, or company working on or using software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open source software now or in the future.
"Their language is
By giving open source developers free access to Sun(TM) OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), the company is fostering open innovation and establishing a leadership role in the framework of a patent commons that will be recognized across the globe.
"They are only making them available under CDDL, which really means today for those who work on OpenSolaris. If you want to use these on Linux, YOU ARE OUT OF LUCK. Maybe there is a general patent pledge somewhere, but I can't find it." Obviously, he couldn't find it because there isn't one yet, and so we wait to see if Sun will do right or not. As Ravicher is quoted as saying, "These are steps in the right direction." I agree, and I live in hope that they will follow through all the way. IBM's language is right there, and Sun's lawyers can just copy and paste, if their intention is the same as IBM's. I'm inclined to be an optimist by nature, but when I read Goguen's somewhat dismissive language about not having a "fancy" pledge and not promising one, as if there is no need for such trivialities, it does put me more on alert, not just with regard to the patent question but also with respect to the problems in the CDDL language. Of course, if community support is nonessential, he'd be right. Who needs fancy pledges? But there is absolutely no doubt that some clarification that has legal force is necessary to make the FOSS community feel comfortable. It's not sufficient to be told that Sun wouldn't dream of suing anyone. If they can, because there is no legal language preventing it, there will be a measure of anxiety and distrust, both about the patent pledge and the CDDL license terms. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 03:40 AM EST |
<eom>
---
inode_buddha
peter.vantassell@gmail.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 03:42 AM EST |
<eom>
---
inode_buddha
peter.vantassell@gmail.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 03:54 AM EST |
Hmmm... Makes mental note to not look at any Solaris code thus exposing myself
to patents until this matter is clarified.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: manys on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 04:15 AM EST |
I try to think based on facts and evidence, and many times it works. As I was
reading this the thing that popped into my head was the difference between Sun's
and IBM's announcements. IBM was clear and upfront, and nobody's really had any
questions so far. Sun is not, and their approach is completely unfinished.
Now we see them in a dialog with the press about their unfinished work, with
reporters asking whether they're going to do this or that, in relation to
existing open source patent-licensing practices. So it would seem to be a simple
act, after this first wave of attention passes (with the release of Solaris 10,
natch) to take a survey of what people are asking about, and crafting something
that toes exactly to what they like about what they've been asked about, and
nothing more. They're opensourcing the pledge, and we are all the unwitting
developers. Furthermore, since Sun is talking about three times the number of
patents as what IBM released, I'll be interested to see if the offer winds up
having one-third (one-ninth?) the benefits to their audience.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 04:15 AM EST |
I should say given SUn's past behavior of contributing to Open soucre it should
have known better than to proceed without alegal promise..
so the obvious questiosnis why the unfair treatment towards the community given
Sun's public statemtns of needing community help for OpenSolaris?
I hope I am wrong about this conclusion.. but its a very big goof for someone as
experienced as SUn with working with the FOSS comunity
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 04:19 AM EST |
...they have cross licensing agreements with Microsoft that Microsoft have paid
for. Opening up patents free to all would probably irritate MS quite a bit. This
sort of assumes that MS doesn't like the idea of Suns patents being avaiable to
all, which is probably a safe bet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dhonn on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 05:38 AM EST |
It seams to me like IBM and Sun might be playing the FOSS community. Instead of
us discussing about anti-patent stradegies, we are involved in discussing who
gets what patents. Its great we are getting all these patents but it still
doesn't solve the patent problem. Are we all accepting that patents are to be
adopted? Have we got them thinking we are all for it but we want some of the
action?
They just assumed the sale. Will that be check or cash? Have we been sold to?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 06:33 AM EST |
The pledge is applicable to any individual, community, or company working
on or using software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of
open source software now or in the future.
I'm a little unclear what
this wording might mean. I'd be a little uncomfortable if this wording was all
that stood between some multinational and abuse of the license.
As I
understand it, if a person (company etc.) is working on two projects, one
entirely proprietary and one F/OSS, then the license is available for him to use
in either product, because he is "an indivudual...working on...open source
software"
If IBM does not intend to license its patents for use in
competing proprietary products, I would be happier if the wording were to say
something more like:
The pledge is applicable to any individual, community,
or company to the extent that it is necessary for use or development of
software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open source
software now or in the future.
Am I paranoid, or does this make some
kind of sense?
Of course, it's entirely possible IBM don't mind if (say)
sun/microsoft/sco etc. use their patents for closed source products, providing
they also publish something under an OSS license, but I don't think that's what
they meant...
Cheers & God bless
Sam
"SammyTheSnake" Penny [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 07:21 AM EST |
Well, no, if you define "open-source developers" as those working on CDDL
licensed products owned by SUN.
IBM has got the actions and the
words and the tone right. So far, SUN has done nothing more than make
the right noises. And the tone of Mr Goguen's reply sounds like he was a
whisker away from adding "Damn ungrateful suspicious hippies."
Trust will
come from a record of trustworthy actions, not just a few good intentions. If
SUN doesn't want community help, then they very welcome to retreat back
to its Ivory Tower. We don't need them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 08:39 AM EST |
(...but then, that's nothing unusual.
:)
Perens:
"... IBM is one of the major forces
lobbying for software patenting in Europe. ..."
"... But IBM's 500
patent grant is tiny next to the 1,500 software patents the company files each
year, the 30,000 software patents already granted by the European Patent
Office and the hundreds of thousands that annually arise in the United
States. ..."
" ... But appointed bureaucrats attempted an end-run
around the elected representatives, twice scheduling motions that would enable
software patent approval without a vote by the representatives.
..."
Um, I guess I thought the big debate in the EU
concerned whether or not to allow software patents. Now, it appears that the EU
has already granted thousands of software patents. Please forgive my ignorance
and confusion, but are software patents legal at this time in the EU or not? If
they're already legal, then what is the big debate about?
---
"When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'm a bit confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 08:46 AM EST
- maybe - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 09:37 AM EST
- I'm a bit confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 10:41 AM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: waltish on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 09:22 AM EST |
I thought the real worry was that they would put some crosspatented MSoft
code/process in Solaris,
and that if they dont identify that code as an MSoft or other contributor patent
risk it leaves potential time bombs in the code.
That could be triggerd at a later date with a patent action by Msoft or other
contributor.
The worry about their licence was the missing section that identified their
obligations to inform us of those types of inclusions.
So their saying they wont sue dosent do anything to make me feel less
concerened.
w
---
To speak the truth plainly and without fear,Is powerfull.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Adam B on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 09:53 AM EST |
Wow, check out the language of his reply. He keeps it very civil first of
all, which is nice. But look how much of it is about "joining IBM" and "making
a pledge similar to ours." Even if Sun manages to get something "fancy" out, I
think they've been relegated to the role of slightly clueless follower. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 10:35 AM EST |
Are judges and juries impressed with press releases?
"The
pledge is applicable to any individual, community, or company working on or
using software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open
source software now or in the future."
The above quote is
from a press release, not the actual pledge. If you read "IBM's Legally Binding
Committment Not To Assert the 500 Named Patents Against OSS", it is very
specific and not confusing at all. One specific part is in the way Open Source
Software is defined "for the purposes of this pledge". It does indeed limit the
pledge to software released under a license certified and listed on
opensource.org as of January 11, 2005. This somewhat contradicts the phrase in
the press release, "now or in the future".
IBM's press release would be
sufficient to make me optimistic. IBM's pledge makes me confident. I can imagine
standing before a judge and waving that pledge and an OSI license to show I am
immune from assertion of those 500 patents. (Much like waving the GPL to show
permission to distribute GPL'd software).
Sun has made a press release. It
has all the fluff and self-promotion typical of press releases by companies. It
is glaringly lacking in the sort of specificity that would inspire confidence.
It is designed to make people feel good about Sun. That's what press releases
do. It is not designed to prevent litigation.
Where is a pledge
from Sun that I could wave in front of a judge to keep me from going bankrupt or
to jail?
---
"The power of the Web is in its universality.
Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect." -- Tim
Berners-Lee, inventor of the WWW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kutulu on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 11:29 AM EST |
Has anyone actually checked into the list of patents that Sun, and IBM for that
matter, are open-sourcing? I would, but I'm scared I'd be tainted, so I'm
holding off until I build up my own thousand-patent portfolio. (Update: I only
have -- er-- 1000 to go!).
I'm wondering if all of this fuss about which license Sun is using for their
patent pledge is even worth it. Are the patents even something that anyone
would care about? I assume they are all things that exist in Solaris, and thus
were "opened" as part of the Open Solaris initiative. Given how old
Solaris's code base is, these patents may well be old and obsolete. Not to
mention, patents actually *do* expire in a reasonable amount of time, so I
wonder how many of these are about to run out on their own?
--K[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 11:53 AM EST |
How can "looking at code expose you to possible copyright
infringement"? Either you infringe or you don't infringe.
If the zillionth monkey, who has never read any book, hacking at the keys
manages to type (instead of "Macbeth") the latest Harry Potter book,
do you think it can publish the book as its own work, just because it was not
"copied"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lifewish on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 01:09 PM EST |
Is it actually possible for Sun to license all of Solaris under the GPL? Surely
if they're entering into cross-licensing agreements that indicates that they
would otherwise be infringing some of Microsoft's patents? How much work would
they have to do to sanitise Solaris before they could release it under the GPL?
---
To err is human but, to really screw up, you need a computer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A question - Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 03:01 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 02:50 PM EST |
| Their declared nemesis, open source software, not only exists as a popular form
of software, but as a political force that can extract concessions from giant
companies like Sun and IBM. This is the most amazing legitimization of the
power of open software that anyone could have imagined.
And it is the worst
possible thing that could ever happen to Microsoft. Its managers, if they
understand the gravity of the situation, should simply be apoplectic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, February 01 2005 @ 03:11 PM EST |
I would venture a guess and say that Sun wants to keep the patents available
under the CDDL only. Saying "Clearly we have no intention of suing
open-source developers" is much different than releasing the patents to
open source. For example, the IBM patents can be used under the GPL, which
allows companies to combine GPL source with closed source for internal use only
(no distribution). That means that the IBM patents can be used by those
companies for that software. Sun is merely saying that they don't want to sue
developers. They mention nothing about the end users.
I have a question for the legally-inclined here. I understand that contracts
and licenses are legally-binding, but what makes IBM's patent pledge
legally-binding? Is it just because they say it is? I don't understand how it
can be legally binding when it is neither a contract or a license. Can someone
please clue me in?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST |
Sun is not your friend.
Open? Not hardly. Take Java, for instance. They try to hype the alleged
'openness' of Java, and hold it up as an example of a cross-platform open
development platform.
But if you need to download Java, like I've been trying to do the last couple of
days, you find there is a problem. The ONE SINGLE PLACE you can get it is
overloaded. I've been told to wait patiently for two days now on their download
page.
This is NOT OPEN! The most important part of open software is the right to
redistribute. If there were mirrors anywhere for J2SE 5.0, I'd just go get it
there instead, like I would with any open-source software. BUT NO! Sun wants
complete, exclusive control over distribution, and refuses or is unable to host
it on a server capable of delivering a world-wide ipso-facto 'standard'. Is
that a Sun server? Who would buy their products?
Too bad so many web developers fell for their 'open' lip-service and built so
much infrastructure that requires java instead of something else more open and
available. I have major broken functionality and I'm still waiting to download
the fix. What's worse, my machine originally tried to download the online
installation, but aborted due to loss of the connection after the first download
installed and tried to get the rest. So now when I try to use the online
installation, I get a message that one is already in progress and I can't start
another. I sure hope the offline installer will work if I can ever get ahold of
it. What a mess!!!
When Sun finally does go down in flames, I, for one, won't miss them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
