RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Open Source Blinx
GPL author Richard Stallman said he's working on amendments that could deal better with software patents; clarify how GPL software may be used in some networked environments and on carefully controlled hardware; and lower some barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.

The most prominent GPL project is Linux, the kernel of an operating system that will underlie a $35.7 billion business in 2008, according to a forecast by market researcher IDC. Among others: the MySQL database, the netfilter/iptables protective firewall and the Samba file-sharing software.

There are, however, patent problems, according to news.com, that boil down to two issues. First, should the license explicitly require those who distribute GPL software to grant others unhindered use of whatever patented technology is involved in that software? And second, should there be some form of punishment for those who file lawsuits alleging that GPL software infringes their patents?

I understand the first problem. The second escapes me.
# Permalink Posted at 6:00 AM 8 comments Email this Link

Comments on this Item:

A "loser pays" litigation system would discourage interested parties with money from playing the legal system like the lottery. I believe that is the idea behind the second point.

# posted by Anonymous 6:50 AM

Now that makes sense. Thanks.

# posted by Bill 9:15 AM

On the second point: Consider a clause that gives free use of GPL software to all, unless they have ever brought suit as mentioned. I.E.: Big company wants to use linux. Wants to sue someone in the GPL arena, but can't (lest it loose the rights to use the GPL software).
CJK

# posted by Anonymous 9:43 AM

I think you've muddied the waters again, CJK. What if the company had a legitimate gripe against the GPL entity? Wouldn't you be denying them their right to due process?

# posted by Bill 9:54 AM

"What if the company had a legitimate gripe against the GPL entity?"

I guess that depends on whether you consider software patents to be legitimate or not. If you don't consider them to be legitimate then you can't have a "legitimate gripe" based on someone else infringing one of them.

If you do consider them to be legitimate then you probably won't like GPL3.

Toby

# posted by Anonymous 2:59 PM

I think it would be difficult to discount the fact that software can and should be allowed copyright protection and that the results of what the software can do could also possibly be patented --unless the world moves en masse over to a simple agrarian barter system, which would probably be a 700 year step backward.

# posted by Bill 3:20 PM

BTW: Toby, if this is your blog
http://www.caboteria.org/~tobyc/rawdog/

I don't remember you asking permission to lift contents from aliceandbill.com in full. Did I not receive the e-mail you sent with your request? If you missed the guidelines for using our work on your blog, please scan down to the post titled "Blogs R Them." Thanks.

(If this is just a coincidence, never mind.)

# posted by Bill 3:31 PM

Actually, under our current system, there is a lot wrong with the 'loser pays' idea. Ideally, it is sound, buty the reality is...

The legal system in the USA does *not* always, or even *usually, result in 'Justice' - it results in the side with themost money winning, *especially* with respect to Civil cases. Criminal cases are a little better, but not much - Prosecutors ego's make it difficult for them to admit when they've been prosecuting the wrong person, and that is why you hear stories about the government suppressing exculpatory evidence and continuing to prosecute the wrong man/woman when it is obvious (to anyone who has access to said exculpatory evidence) that they are innocent.

So, a 'loser pays' concept uner our current system would actually make it much *easier* for big corporations to win their cases, due to the fear (of the target of their lawsuit) having to pay their (the big corporation with lotsa bucks) legal bills.

One thing that would help this problem a little is only making the loser pay if they were the 'Defendant' or 'Respondent', as opposed to the one initiating the lawsuit, but the problem would still prevent lots of legitimate lawsuits from ever even being filed.

'Loser pays' is a really *bad* idea.

# posted by Libertytrek 7:19 AM

Post a Comment