From: Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p...
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p...
The embodiments of the present invention described are implemented in a computing platform based on the computer operating system commonly known as 'Linux' that is available as open source directly over the Internet. Linux is also available through various vendors who provide service and support for the Linux operating system. Among these vendors are Red Hat, Inc., of Research Triangle Park, N.C., the assignee of the present invention.
I cannot see that the "inventor" is an RedHat employee, but...
The sourcecode definitely has now been published so it is covered by the GPL. For this reason, the author grants royalty free use by anybody. He cannot earn money from this idea.
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
Some time ago, I made a proposal to include some (non-read hat) code covered by GPL. The answer was: We are not allowed to include code that has not been coded by Red Hat employees.
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 12:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
I'm not the defender of anyone, but can you explain this statement? Putting such ana ccusation on a public list without proof is not fair. I've seen red-hat releasing most (if not all) of his code with the GPL license so far, so I cannot see why you say they are not-GPL friendly. So far, in my experience, it seem that red-hat has been one of the most free software friendly commercial GNU/Linux distribution. I can be wrong of course.
Some time ago, I made a proposal to include some (non-read hat) code covered by GPL. The answer was: We are not allowed to include code that has not been coded by Red Hat employees.
include into what ? knowing your diplomacy may be you simply got it wrong ... (but that's my opinion based only on the flames you have made on this list)
regards, Simo.
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p...
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p...
The embodiments of the present invention described are implemented in a computing platform based on the computer operating system commonly known as 'Linux' that is available as open source directly over the Internet. Linux is also available through various vendors who provide service and support for the Linux operating system. Among these vendors are Red Hat, Inc., of Research Triangle Park, N.C., the assignee of the present invention.
I cannot see that the "inventor" is an RedHat employee, but...
The sourcecode definitely has now been published so it is covered by the GPL. For this reason, the author grants royalty free use by anybody. He cannot earn money from this idea.
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
Are you sure of that ? I think RedHat is one of the only GNU/Linux vendor that take into account the GNU General Public License. Every part of code done by RedHat seems to be under the GNU General Publice License. (from the installer to the tmpwatch command ;-)
If you compare with other well-known distributor like SuSe that make some proprietary software (yast[1-2]) including some of their install software without to mention the copyrighted cd layout.
Now, on the other side, the applicant of the patent is not RedHat itself ? Maybe we have to contact Bob Young or maybe other well-known developer at redhat like Dave Miller or Alan Cox ? Maybe to get an official statement about this issue.
Maybe they grant, on the other side, a RF (and not a RAND) license for Free Software developer if they have really put these patents. (maybe we could put them in http://www.ael.be/node.php?id=52)
I fully agree that software patents are dangerous and must be removed in any countries.
I hope we can clarify the situation.
adulau
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 12:35:14PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > The sourcecode definitely has now been published so it is > covered by the GPL. For this reason, the author grants royalty > free use by anybody. He cannot earn money from this idea.
Well, I don't agree...
I think that Red Hat could say something like this:
"if you want to make a derived work from our GNU GPL'ed software, then you are free to do it (of course, you have to respect the GNU GPL terms). You can use/modify the version of our patented idea that we have implemented under the GNU GPL, without fees.
But if you want to reimplement our patented idea on another program, then you have to ask us for a permission; then we may require that you choose between these:
a. you release your work under the GNU GPL (if you want to use our patent without paying fees);
b. you pay a royalty (if you want to use another license and/or release a proprietary program)."
I think that it could be quite a realistic hypothesis --- and it could be the first software patent that could be used to support Free Software :-)
Regards,
alceste, who doesn't like software patents anyway
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 12:55, Alceste Scalas wrote:
I think that it could be quite a realistic hypothesis --- and it could be the first software patent that could be used to support Free Software :-)
Would that be the day....
However, software patents have problems that surpass by and large what benefits it could theoretically bring.
Cheers,
Alceste:
a. you release your work under the GNU GPL (if you want to use our patent without paying fees); b. you pay a royalty (if you want to use another license and/or release a proprietary program)."I think that it could be quite a realistic hypothesis --- and it could be the first software patent
Never heard of the FSMLabs patent?
that could be used to supportFree Software :-)
I don't call this "support", sorry. Sure other people praise the approach, but not everybody does. Note the note below, though.
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:45:42AM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > Alceste: > > a. you release your work under the GNU GPL (if you > > want to use our patent without paying fees); > > > > b. you pay a royalty (if you want to use another > > license and/or release a proprietary program)." > > > > I think that it could be quite a realistic hypothesis --- and it > > could be the first software patent > > Never heard of the FSMLabs patent?
Yes, you're right (I didn't remember it when I wrote my e-mail).
> > that could be used to support Free Software :-) > > I don't call this "support", sorry. Sure other people praise > the approach, but not everybody does. Note the note below, > though.
I do agree with you... Maybe I havent't been clear, but I was joking about something that I think is clearly absurd: relying on software patents to "support" Free Software is something like relying on enlightened dictatorship to "support" people's freedom.
Regards,
alceste
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 13:55, Alceste Scalas wrote:
I think that it could be quite a realistic hypothesis --- and it could be the first software patent that could be used to support Free Software :-)
The problem is: will the short term benefit of few software patents "supporting" free software be so good? or will this kind of things instead harm the Free Software community by "supporting" software patents as a viable thing?
I'm on the list of people that are for the 2nd.
Applying for software patents is a way to say they are ok! But they are not as you know!
That said, I cannot say anything against RedHat, they are a company and have to follow real world rules, so to defend themselves they are probably forced to apply for patents, or they will not have a portfolio to defend themselves against other companies that instead have patents.
So the problem is not RedHat applying for patents, but the patent system itself. We must be very active and make our voice loud to avoid software patents are ever applied here in Europe or we will see for sure the end of the Free Software Movement. No minor or major free software producer will be ever able to fight a patent infringment accusation, generally they will not even have the money to start a legal defense. And we cannot expect companies to be fair when they see their profits eroded and want to push a proprietary program against a free program.
I may be seen pessimistic, but I think I'm only realistic.
regards, Simo.