Microsoft says software that's licensed under a new version of a popular open source license isn't covered by the patent protection deal it recently signed with desktop Linux distributor Linspire. In a posting on its Web site, Microsoft said the Linspire client software protected by the patent deal doesn't include any parts of the distribution that "comprise or include Foundry Products, Clone Products, GPLv3 Software, or Other Excluded Products." The document was published on July 5, three weeks after Microsoft struck a deal with Linspire through which Linspire's customers are indemnified against Microsoft's patent claims against Linux users.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Why do you imagine this might be a problem? Linux itself (kernel) is only about 3% of the code of a Lnux distribution. The biggest chunk of any Linux distribution is GNU software.
I'm talking about licensing problems, plus the "could-be" fact GPL 3 will be declared a contract.
But I wouldn't be so sure GNU software is so important to Linux distros. I read somewhere people (from the Linux community) discussing about GNU software removal from a Linux distro. If I understood the thing well, the only critical pieace of GNU software is libc library. They were specifically talking about what to do if they needed to remove GNU software and that was sort of conclusion. I remember someone to have a solution for libc too but I honestly can't remember which one it was.
GNU folks have all to loose by loosing Linux while I'm not so sure Linux will loose that much. But I'm not an expert here so these are just speculations coming from what I read.
"Nobody truly knows what they're up to," Bottomley says. "It won't be an attack on Linux until Microsoft sues somebody."
Microsoft won't sue Linux. We're perfectly aware about this, because:
1) Microsoft never sued anyone about patents nor they like to do that. They stated that many times.
2) They would be the "even eviler" guy.
3) Any counrt will first force Linux to remove offending code before anything else. After that, Linux will be free to go on.
4) Why suing? And most of all, whom to sue? Sueing kernel developers would have no effects since they're a movement, not a company itself. Microsoft could not sue IBM, Red Hat or others which could easily claim they got code from kernel developers and they're not responsible for thidy-parties code. So what's the point in suing anyone?
This simply won't happen. However, the thing here is not actually suing anyone but if Microsoft could really do that. Would companies invest millions or billions in something Microsoft could harm if they wish? By letting people know they could (and I believe they could, even if I believe they won't), they're essentially trying to harm Linux business by uncertainity. That's what companies do against other companies, nothing new.
Precisely. Microsoft keep their software a secret, they won't tell anyone how it works ... ergo, Microsoft have no applicable patents.
Saying that closed source code cannot be patented is a joke. C'me on... let our feet be on the ground.
P.S. ... which doesn't mean patent laws are always applicable In EU, patenting a software is not allowed so a case would have no ground here. We're of course talking about crazy systems where software can be patented...
Member since:2007-02-17
GCC
GNOME
binutils
coreutils
All of the above bar GNOME are absolutely critical.
GCC, for example, produces executables in ELF format. Binutils includes the ELF loader so that the kernal can run the executable.
Without the above GNU software, you could have a kernel which had no desktop, no means to load any executables to run, and no means to make executables in the first place.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine exactly how critical these bits of GNU software are to any Linux distribution.
This simply won't happen. However, the thing here is not actually suing anyone but if Microsoft could really do that. Would companies invest millions or billions in something Microsoft could harm if they wish? By letting people know they could (and I believe they could, even if I believe they won't), they're essentially trying to harm Linux business by uncertainity.
Everyone knows Microsoft won't sue Linux. As you say, there is little point, and a whole load of risk for Microsoft.
Since Microsoft won't sue, and everyone knows it, then their FUD threats have no weight.
I did not say that. What I said was that in order to get a patent, the patent has to describe how the invention works. The patent must disclose the method (not the code per se, but the methods used in the invention).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a patentee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention."
Microsoft have not disclosed the major methods of their software (for things like network protocols and document formats) ... therefore they have no major patent which covers those things.
Member since:
2007-02-17
Why do you imagine this might be a problem? Linux itself (kernel) is only about 3% of the code of a Lnux distribution. The biggest chunk of any Linux distribution is GNU software.
Here is a more reasoned view on what will probably happen:
http://rcpmag.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=1102
"Nobody truly knows what they're up to," Bottomley says. "It won't be an attack on Linux until Microsoft sues somebody."
True.
"If [Microsoft] found the knife, they'd use it -- but I don't think they found the knife,"
Indubitably.
"Patent law is supposed to protect people who wish to publish their ideas. I suspect these ideas were never published."
Precisely. Microsoft keep their software a secret, they won't tell anyone how it works ... ergo, Microsoft have no applicable patents.