HP balks at patent provision in GPL update

(continued from previous page)

Essentially, HP believes that language in the new draft could permanently defang a company's ability to sue for patent infringement in a particular situation. Imagine Company A holds a certain patent. If technology covered by that patent is included in GPL-governed software distributed by Company A, then Company A no longer has the right to sue anyone over infringement of that patent. That applies even if Company A itself didn't write or add that technology, or if another entity--Company B--inserted it into the software.

"Suppose somebody added into the Linux kernel some feature that might go into a Linux distribution, (a feature) we had intended to retain as a differentiator and that we were not expecting was going to become open source," Peterson said. "Our mere redistribution of that would mean we could no longer enforce that patent."

In contrast, with GPLv2 software, a company that stops distributing the affected software is then free to sue for patent infringement, Peterson said.

HP would be happy with a few changes to Section 11, Peterson said. Without them, HP would prefer GPLv2, he said.

"We were hoping some more improvements would be made in the second draft," said Christine Martino, vice president of HP's Open Source and Linux Organization.

Although HP wants to keep its patent litigation options open, Peterson added that he wouldn't expect to sue any open-source organizations for such infringement: "Asserting rights against the open-source community I would think is a very unavailing activity," he said.

Listening to other voices
HP isn't the only company whose views are being taken into account, though, Moglen said.

"The enterprises with very substantial patent portfolios participating in the GPLv3 process have divergent views about optimal patent licensing strategy," he said. "Accordingly, they have equally disparate views about how GPLv3 should treat patent claims held by those who contribute to, as well as those who distribute, GPL code."

Other prominent voices have lodged objections.

Torvalds has been sharply critical about the digital rights management provision of the GPLv3 draft, arguing that it reaches inappropriately into the domain of hardware. He also has criticized the foundation's philosophy.

Unless things changes dramatically, the Linux kernel will be unaffected by changes in GPLv3. Years ago, Torvalds opted to govern the software only under GPLv2, expressly omitting the "or later version" wording the foundation recommends.

Even if the GPL moves to version 3 without Torvalds, though, he remains an influential programmer.

"If the kernel is under GPLv2, (it's) awkward," Peterson said. "It creates the question whether other projects would look to that for thought leadership."

Despite its concerns, though, HP is pleased with the overall GPLv3 process--especially given the tremendous breadth of interests involved, Martino said. "The FSF has done an excellent job creating a real open process across a huge community."

[WJeansonne]

It Was Only A Matter of Time

I love it. The wonderful world of capitalism is beginning to split the GPL in half. And who knows, maybe thirds, forths and fiths if we're lucky. This stupid utopian concept of free software is ridiculous. Who in there right mind would develop software, laboring intensely, so that someone else could copy and enhance or cheat their way to success and profits over the originator. A fool, that's who.

[rcrusoe]

Never argue with a fool

You run the risk that people can't tell the two of you apart.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

It was only a matter of time.

I love it. The wonderful concept of monarchy is beginning to split the country in half. And who knows, maybe thirds, forths and fiths if we're lucky. This stupid utopian concept of democracy is ridiculous. Who in there right mind would want to listen to the opinion of the "average person", getting only a single vote so that stupid dirty poor people could all get together and override the will of the Previleged Elite? A fool, that's who.

[dargon19888]

There are two issues... Software Patents and ...

"Free Software".

IMHO, the majority of software patents don't hold water. Note: I said majority, there are some works that are truly patentable.

Having said that, what you're seeing is those companies with the deep pockets to back the "free software", they want to protect their investment. After all, they are there to make money.

Even Stallman the founder of the free software movement believed in selling support.

But I do agree with your comment. There are many misconceptions of the Open/Free Software movement and that when you get companies like IBM, HP, SUN, Oracle, etc getting involved, you will see that they will take control to their advantage.

Also remember that in today's software start-up company's business plan, you want to grow to a certain point, then get bought out by a larger fish. ... But that's another story.

The sad truth... GPL does more to protect IP than other licenses like Apache.

But hey! What do I know? ;-)

[Seaspray0]

Whatever form, the results are impressive

The fact that thousands of people would collaberate on a common software project and produce results that can rival that of Corporate programs and receive no compensation.... Amazing! The GPL has proven it's worth.