GPL getting tougher on patent deals

TalkBack 17 of 26:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

It's not a news! A mere copy of the FSF's mail

Really, all those that have been interested in the FSF's future GPLv3 have received this email from the FSF.

This is not an a ZDNet article, but a mere copy-and-paste of the original FSF's email.

Does ZDNet want to make all its content available with the GPL?
If so continue like this. But really, many parts of the ZDNet website, including the copyright that it displays, is illegal.

ZDNet has just stolen here the FSF rights, by copy-pasting such email without authorization, and adding "Copyright ? 2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use" at the bottom of this page!

Anyway, this is just not a news. Just a notice about the current state of the discussions. When you make a title like "GPL getting tougher on patent deals" in your commercial "ZDNET Announcements" mailing list, you're just giving false information. Nothing is confirmed, because the GPL has still NOT changed the policy regarding the patent deals. All those things are still being discussed, and it's normal that the draft continues to evolve according to the ongoing discussions.

What is clear is that Patents are a problem because they are stealing the rights of GPL-licencing authors; patents are granted everyday based on very basic aggregation of ideas made by others, and no effective implementation of these aggregations. so the patentors are just waiting that the normal evolution of projects starts aggregating together, and then they will attack the authors, even if nothing was stolen by them.

Patents are just forbidding GPL authors to associate their existing projects, even if this is a natural evolution. All GPL softwares are focused on producing a global GPL system that will run many GPL softwares together. Most of those patents are completely illegal because they were based on prior arts made by others.

Those patents are even granted without any proof of concept created by those to whom patents are granted. They don't create anything but are patenting obvious concepts that are the natural evolution of projects. So there are patents with claims like "take a GPL-licenced OS, take a GPL-licenced text processor, associate the two in a single product that can be managed as a single unit, and supported simultaneously by a single authority, through a single management interface." or like "take a javanese-english dictionnary, take a english-urdu dictionnary, associate the two and you get a new smart application that translates havanese to urdu". Most of the patents are such stupid ideas with NO effective creation.

That's the spirit of the proposed change in the GPL: forbidding the aggregation of GPL-licenced software into a new concept that would not be covered by the GPL itself. In other words, it says that all GPL softwares have the full right to be aggregated and used together. It protects GPL authors against abusive claims: if you get a patent granted, whose implementation would require you using a GPL licenced software, then the only way to have a product that respect both the GPL and the patent claim would be to have your existing GPL licence voided, and all your distribution rights canceled. This would make your patent unusable, and there would be absolutely no interest to request for a patent for the mere aggregation of GPLed softwares or other free contents now in the public domain.

To take another analogy: suppose you are making a GPL-ed brick. Obviously the brick is made to build house, but still now, you, the maker of that brick have not created the complete plan to explain how to build best use them to build a house. But it is obvious that your brick will be used to build houses, by whatever methods. Now someone asks for a patent on the best way to dispose bricks to build a house and says that the best way is to dispose them so that they don't form vertical columns, but stack on top of each other, so that they partially overlap. And it gives a recide where you also need cement to fix the bricks. But now, the GPL brick maker and the GPL cement maker cannot associate with a GPL architect to create a GPL house without paying royaltees to the patent holder, that has created nothing, but abused the system!

Patents are stealing our freedom and even the freedom of any other author to use and licence their own product legally. These patents are just abusing our legitimate freedom of association. Patents granted on concepts rather than concrete realization of something that is effectively new and unique, in a domain where there are other alternatives are possibly OK. But patents granted on simple aggregation of concepts for which there are in fact no other alternative because the aggregation is unavoidable are threatening every authors; not only the GPL authors.

Posted by: PhilippeV   Posted on: 03/28/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• eBook - How to Drive Better Business Outcomes with Exceptional Web Experiences IBM Today's businesses stand to benefit by implementing an enterprise-class ... Download Now
• Migrate Your Oracle Databases with Near-Zero Downtime Quest Software In today's economy, IT departments are asked to do more with less and stay ... Download Now
• DB2 for the Oracle DBA Quest Software In today's tough economy, IT departments are faced with smaller budgets ... Download Now