- Related Stories
-
New Linux phone standards effort in the works
November 13, 2005 -
PalmSource joins open-source group
October 17, 2005 -
Linux calling: Are cell phones ready?
October 14, 2005 -
Open season at Linux show
August 11, 2005
No court cases have been filed, but the issue is serious enough that several companies have pledged not to use their patent portfolios against the open source operating system.
An industry consortium devoted to Linux, Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) has decided to coordinate this process. OSDL launched a Web site last week to help developers check which patents have been pledged. Patent Commons contains more than 500 patents so far, but that may not be enough to significantly affect the problem.
Some activists have claimed that the whole concept of patent pledges is misguided. ZDNet UK spoke with OSDL Chief Executive Stuart Cohen to understand the wider aims of the project.
Q: Why have you launched Patent Commons today?
Cohen: Over the past year, several companies have made patent pledges, showing their commitment to the open source community in different ways. In August we announced we would create Patent Commons, and this is the public launch naming our partners.
What does Patent Commons offer?
It gives IT professionals and vendors a single place to go to see which patents have been pledged; it's a leaping-off point from where they can drive added value.
But presumably developers still can't be sure that they won't infringe patents that haven't been pledged?
Yes, there are so many patents out there, so people may still infringe. This is the first step forward.
Which companies are supporting the Patent Commons?
We're being supported by Intel, IBM, Sun, Computer Associates, Nokia, Ericsson and Red Hat--they've all pledged their support publicly.
Is more support still needed?
We hope that these companies will make more patents available over time and that more companies will join.
Why aren't there more already?
It's a question of education and awareness.
Are there any particular companies you'd like to see join?
We would like to see Microsoft make some of its patents available. Microsoft is still evaluating where open source and open standards fit into its strategy, and they've been hearing from a number of customers who want interoperability between Windows on the server and Linux on the server.
Isn't Microsoft the big enemy? If anyone's going to bring legal action against Linux for alleged patent violation...
A lot of people who have a lot of patents have looked at this issue, and nothing's come of it. It's now a question of how we can make developers more productive.
You aren't worried that Linux could be hit by an intellectual property infringement case?
What was once a fear has now gone.
The Open Source Risk Management group claimed last year that Linux potentially violated over 200 patents. Are those patents all included in the Commons?
We can't say that. Those patents were never actually named, so no one knows which ones they are.
You're still confident that Linux is protected?
There's always been a suspicion that some of those patents were held by Microsoft. So, as Microsoft has not pledged any patents to the open source community, this could be an issue. But, our customer advisers speak to people, including major customers who run both Windows and Linux, and they say it's not an issue.
Which other companies would you like to join the Commons?
There are several, including HP, Oracle, SAP, NEC. But now that the Commons is out there, giving developers a single place to check patents that have been pledged...who cannot support that?
What's the incentive to pledge patents in this way?
Pledging patents creates the opportunity for more software, hardware, services to be developed around Linux.
So what's the difference between Patent Commons and the Open Innovation Network?
The two initiatives are complementary but different. The Open Innovation Network is acquiring patents and offering them on a license-free basis. Although we may acquire a few patents, with Patent Commons the companies involved continue to own their patents.
We both have the intention of accelerating Linux--while they are Linux-only, we are supporting Linux and open source. It's a very compatible partnership.
Is there any crossover?
No, but they could pledge their patents to Patent Commons.
Would you like them to do that?
We'd probably expect them to, but we don't know it as a fact.
Graeme Wearden reported for ZDNet UK.
See more CNET content tagged:
patent, Open Source Development Labs, Linux, open-source community, open source
- Head in the sand.
- by November 21, 2005 2:17 PM PST
- Of course no one is suing yet because no substantial value has been created yet that ties to the OS. This is what I warn my clients about constantly when the subject of Linux rears its ugly head. That is, no infringement lawsuits have occured yet because no potentially billion dollar business hinges on the OS's technology. Once that occurs the lawsuits will fly. Well to be perfectly honest, one technology may have already started this and it's start with a big G and ends with an e, but the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit may solve that one if SCO prevails. :-)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- FUD
- by ddesy November 22, 2005 11:12 AM PST
- Talk about FUD!!
- Like this
-
- Heads where?
- by November 23, 2005 6:41 PM PST
- If this is the advice you give your clients, and they are buying it, their heads are in a bad place as well...
- Like this
-
- The difference between Linux and Windows...
- by Johnny Mnemonic November 26, 2005 8:16 PM PST
- Everything comes from somewhere. Linux was not
- Like this
-
- big G
- by Thunder Johny June 19, 2007 9:29 AM PDT
- http://www.analogstereo.com/ford_f750_owners_manual.htm
- Like this
-
(5 Comments)"This is what I warn my clients about constantly when the subject of Linux rears its ugly head." you say.
I hate to break it to you, but Linux isn't ugly. In fact, it's been proving itself for some time now. Wake up and smell the coffee, and get off that MS bandwagon.
written from scratch. The kernel was coded from
scratch, but the ideas and philosophy behind Linux
can be traced back to the original AT&T UNIX
system. Likewise, much of the software for Linux
(C compiler, X Windows, filesystem utilities,
etc.) was available on the various UNIX systems
long before Linux was even a thought.
The difference, of course, is that Linux *legally*
used the ideas and designs already available.
Microsoft cannot claim the same thing; by using
VMS code in NT, they actually committed copyright
infringement. If DEC patented any parts of their
system, then MS would also have committed patent
infringement. Of course Digital let Microsoft off
easy by settling out of court. Even when MS loses,
they still win.
In addition, Windows does not follow global
protocol standards correctly. It even deliberately
ignores them in favor of proprietary
implementations. Windows' code is a collection of
bad programming practices.It contains a huge
amount of sloppy code and kludgey design, which
results in an extremely glitchy and buggy end
product. (A good example of sloppy programming is
buffer access, which is routinely left unchecked
in release versions of all Microsoft products. As
a result of this amateur approach, Microsoft
products are riddled with buffer overrun
vulnerabilities. Of course buffer overruns don't
only occur in Microsoft products but are also
found in other software on other platforms. But
the difference is in the numbers.) Bloated code
has made Windows' efficiency the lowest in the
market, requiring more resources and yielding less
performance than any other OS in existence.
Microsoft products have the worst security rating
(and track record) in the industry. Their
developers seem to have been completely unaware of
even basic security issues.
But, when you are a monopoly, the motivation to
provide a stable and secure product is greatly
minimized. Such is the major difference between a
proprietary monopoly System like Windows and an
Open System like Linux.