Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft's Patent Pledge "Worse Than Useless"

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 10, 2006 04:22 PM
from the infinity-bad dept.
Microsoft Software Linux
munchola writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has declared that Microsoft's patent pledge to open source developers is 'worse than useless'. SFLC chief technology officer, Bradley Kuhn, has written to FOSS developers warning them that 'developers are no safer from Microsoft patents now than they were before'. According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute. You cannot pass the rights to your downstream recipients, even to the maintainers of larger projects on which your contribution is built.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linspire Signs Patent Pact With MS 386 comments
RLiegh sends us to an AP article reporting that Linspire has signed a patent deal with Microsoft. The company, which started out life as "Lindows," joins a growing list of patent agreements reached between Microsoft and vendors. Linspire will be granted a license to use True Type Fonts and "various code" that would allow for Linspire users to use voice on Windows Live Messenger as well as the usual patent protection for Linspire's customers. In return, among other things, Linspire will make Microsoft's search engine the default search on PCs shipped with their OS. Kevin Carmony, the CEO for Linspire, approached Microsoft a year and a half ago, according to the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft's Patent Pledge "Worse Than Useless" 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I doubt anyone here is actually surprised by this. Since when has Microsoft ever done anything truly for the good of OSS?

    • Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thebdj (768618) on Friday November 10 2006, @04:43PM (#16798354) Journal
      I doubt anyone here is actually surprised by this. Since when has Microsoft ever done anything truly for the good of OSS?

      They created ME and Vista. I would consider the users that left Windows because of ME or the ones who might leave because of Vista, something truly good for OSS.

      • Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)

        by ClickOnThis (137803) on Friday November 10 2006, @05:37PM (#16799018) Journal
        Unfortunately, a whole lot of people have been writing code and assigning copyright over to Novell, which is now basically no better than writing and assigning copyright over to Microsoft...

        But if Novell released said code under the GPL, then the genie is out of the bottle. Stick with the code that pre-dates the agreement between MS and Novell, and I think you're okay.

        Oh, and stop contributing code to Novell.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 7Prime (871679)
        Ya know, believe it or not, the "we're just out to make money" mentality, is not one shared by all businesses in all countries of the world. There are many countries in which a business's first priority is to their employees, then their community, and only thirdly to themselves (many businesses in Japan, for instance). Unfortunately, American's have convinced themselves that the only way to survive in the business world is to forsake all ethicality... and so they've made that true. It's very sad.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nurb432 (527695)
          The difference is here in america the goal is not to just 'survive' its to obliterate the competition.
  • Because we all know how Microsoft treats those it writes contracts with... I seriously have to wonder why Novel thought that was a good idea. Are they so lacking in cash that they felt it was worth dealing with Bill G.?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Seriously...if, as CEO of a major company, Microsoft were to offer me $400 million ...I would take it. If I didn't my shareholders would lynch me.
      The long term consequences don't matter here... all that matters is that for the next couple of years, profits go up
      Welcome to corporation-think
      This has nothing to do with feel-good, Microsoft is teh EVIL, I hug bunnies world.
      A corporation exists to make money for its owners
      period
      too bad about SuSE Linux... it will be seen as a victim of collateral damage
  • http://edu-nix.org/shanecoyle/?p=8 [edu-nix.org] / www.boycottnovell.com

    • Re:Boycott Novell (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kennon (683628) on Friday November 10 2006, @05:40PM (#16799052) Homepage
      This is some amazing shit. No one has any idea what the ramifications, if ANY are going to be from this deal and everyone is so quick to run and lynch a company who has dedicated millions of lines of code to open source projects that they make zero dollars from. This is the same Novell who along with IBM took a stand AGAINST SCO and cost those bastards millions in legal fees. This is the same Novell who is activly sueing M$ for patent violations in the MSOffice product. Shane, how many lines of code have you contributed to any open source projects? What have you done for the community that can come close to comparing to even a little of what Novell has done for Linux in the last few years. Is it really so boring up there in New York that you have nothing better to do other than sit around and stew about some shit that none of us will probably ever even be affected by? All of you armchair lawyers need to STFU and wait until something bad actually happens to the community before you start trying to crucify a fairly benevolent company, relatively speaking, who dedicates themselves daily to the Linux community. WHEN/IF something like that does happen I will be more than happy to join in the ripping of Novell's spine from their body and showing it to them, but until then can we please move on?

  • Ok... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Exsam (768226) on Friday November 10 2006, @04:29PM (#16798170)
    Now, people who keep tagging every article "itsatrap" This would be a proper usage of that tag.
  • ...and snow is white and Tom Cruise is a closeted homosexual. Tell us something we don't know.
    • Snow White a lesbian? You, sir, have just brought my fantasies with her and the delectable Miss Piggy to life! I knew reading about Linux had a benefit, but I just hadn't found it. In my dreams, I will be saluting you.
    • ..and snow is white. Tell us something we don't know.

  • Not the Novell Deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday November 10 2006, @04:32PM (#16798194)

    Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.

    • Re:Not the Novell Deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hurfy (735314) on Friday November 10 2006, @05:44PM (#16799102)
      "The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself;"

      Meaning the stuff they would never know about to sue for in the first place. Gee they won't sue you for stuff they don't know you did, how generous ;)

  • There's already a (correct) way to open a patent. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2006, @04:41PM (#16798316)
    It's called 'dedicating' it. No restrictions.

    It shows people people that your patent was only filed to prevent other people from patenting the idea and causing trouble. People tend to look very favorably on dedications.

  • For isolated, uncompensated, unimportant developer (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2006, @04:41PM (#16798320)
    From the Bradley M. Kuhn's Letter [softwarefreedom.org]:

    Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer.

    Groklaw also raised questions about Novell's deal [groklaw.net]:

    Novell here is stepping outside the line of fire and agreeing with Microsoft that *end users* are the ones that you must go after in any patent infringement dispute. Shades of SCOsource. Thanks for nothing, Novell. More questions: When were Novell SUSE customers asked if they wished Novell to negotiate a agreement with Microsoft on their behalf? When were Novell SUSE customers asked about the terms of said agreement? What consideration does Microsoft get from Novell's customers? Does negotiating this agreement on Novell's customers' behalf indicate that Novell assumed Power of Attorney for their customers in this matter? Did Novell truly represent the best interest of their customers using Power of Attorney? Can Novell legally assume Power of Attorney for their customers without a written grant? Do Novell customers have the ability to "opt-out" of this agreement? Is this agreement binding on customers?

  • Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors missing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vojtech (565680) <vojtech@suse.cz> on Friday November 10 2006, @05:12PM (#16798702)
    I, too, have been reading through the pledges at the Microsoft website, to figure out the exact wording and implications.

    The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution.

    The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" is also not interesting, since it covers the transfer of code from an author to SUSE, and only that and nothing else.

    The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors" is referenced from the above one. This should be the one that is covering the community distribution part. But is missing on the Microsoft website: Either it doesn't exist at all and the reference is a mistake, or there is a reason why it was left out from the web.

    Has anyone managed to find it? Why Bradley Kuhn doesn't mention it?

  • Hmmm, why do this now? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday November 10 2006, @07:15PM (#16800090)
    Why now, at this point in time are Linux developers being threatened in this way? Why not last year? Why not two, five years ago?

    I reckon they are terrified about Vista... They're terrified it'll be a dead loss with millions jumping ship to Linux. They're trying to fence of Linux from their ex-customers in advance of it's release.

     

  • Evil on one side, evil on the other (Score:3, Insightful)

    by petrus4 (213815) on Saturday November 11 2006, @05:44AM (#16803738) Homepage Journal
    Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer.

    This from the man who believes [omnipotent.net] that the GPL is the only FOSS license with the right to exist.

    Mr. Kuhn, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as Microsoft are themselves. In fact, you are moreso. At least Microsoft do not try and pretend to be anything other than what they are. You are not one micron less a fascist...merely from a different direction.

    You can take your warped, cultic distortion of the word "freedom," and cram it where you feel most appropriate. You and Richard Stallman are open source's answer to David Miscavige and L. Ron. Hubbard, respectively. You are the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back.

    Some who use Linux with the total inability to think for themselves may delude themselves that they need to use your brain and Stallman's in leiu of their own. I am not among such people, and I defy, reject, and repudiate both you, Stallman, and the entirely *false* freedom which the FSF stands for. You would have us reject Microsoft as our masters, only to install yourselves in their place.

    You do not speak for everyone who uses open source. You most certainly do not speak for me.

    • Re:Enough (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday November 10 2006, @04:42PM (#16798340)

      This is getting worse than Zune news. No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press.

      I know it is not normal to RTFA, but if you did you'd see it was a press release about the license MS released with regard to their promise not to sue open source hobbyists over patent violations. It is not about the Novell deal, despite the fact that every comment thus far (except my previous one) seems to be assuming otherwise. So people do know more than was published in the press release, just not about what you seem to have thought this article was about.

      • Re:No kidding (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2006, @05:12PM (#16798696)
        Business and hippies don't mix. It's like oil and water.

        The point is, open source people _aren't_ hippies. They've been running successful businesses for years now. But microsoft wants them to be hippies, wants the world to believe them to be - and now, is trying to make them be, using software patent monopolies to shut down open source businesses. The message is "if you're a hippie hobbyist coder, we won't sue you. But dare to build a business, and we will". Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software.

        "hippy and communist" are just wrong when applied to free software folk: "Raging gun-nut libertarian" is far more accurate. Microsoft are playing with fire.

        • Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)

          by zotz (3951) on Friday November 10 2006, @05:57PM (#16799266) Homepage Journal
          "Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software."

          Bingo. A point I have been trying to make for what seems like ages.

          There are no free markets when it comes to goods protected by copyrights or patents. With copyleft you can perhaps get close to a free market in those goods.

          all the best,

          drew
          http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
          Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by zotz (3951)
              I have something backwards?

              What exactly do I have backwards? Are you claiming that copyrights and patents create or enhance Free Market Capitalism?

              You will need to bring some serious arguments and lots of whatever to put that case across.

              Oh, and those ad hominum references to lemmings don't work too well.

              all the best,

              drew
              http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
              Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
    • No. US Patent Law does not make any such distinction or exception for private home use. You can be infringing if you mass produce 100 billion copies to sell, or if you just "practice" the art in the privacy of you own home. Granted, the likelihood of any bad consequences for infringing (or even anyone finding out you're infringing) are not at all equal.

      But I think this commonly held misconception might be one reason why the general public sees nothing wrong with patents...they think it only applies if yo

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.