"In legal terms, Linux sources are like a minefield."

[dspari1]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-285768.html

"kFreeBSD offers an alternative in case Linux is branded illegal by the SCO case or other threats," the developers wrote. "In legal terms, Linux sources are like a minefield. kFreeBSD is much less vulnerable to such attacks."

This comment has been bothering me a lot. What proof does Debian have that the Linux kernel is infringing on any patents? Just because Microsoft says so, it doesn't mean that it is. If it was BSD that was popular, I bet a nickle that Microsoft would be saying the same thing about BSD.

If Linux was truly infringing on patents, Microsoft would have directly sued the big corporate Linux distributions like Redhat, Canonical, and Novell(who made a deal with Microsoft). Instead, we have Microsoft suing little companies like TomTom to induce fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I don't mind Debian supporting the BSD kernel, but I do mind Debian discrediting the Linux kernel and the people who code for it by accusing the coders of breaking patents.

By doing this, Debian is legitimizing Microsoft's claim with no proof behind it, and it's unnecessary for them to talk bad about Linux in order to promote their latest offering.

[glotz]

Don't read zdnet tech articles.

[samjh]

The quote is rubbish. It was sourced from http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_why, which also contains this disclaimer:

"They're not absolute truths, nor do we expect everyone to agree with them."

[Grant A.]

If Linux does infringe patents, it doesn't mean ðat it automatically becomes SCO's or Microsoft's property. Ðey own ðe patents not ðe copyright.

On top of ðat, Linux is Open Source, and ðe infringing code will be removed and replaced wið non-infringing code ðe second it is flagged as ðreatening or harmful to development.

[MaxIBoy]

The SCO case has been debunked. SCO no longer exists as a company. Microsoft once claimed patent infiringements, but they refuse to say which patents have actually been violated, and they've shut up about it for a while now.

Were any illegal code to be found in the Linux kernel, this code would be gone faster than you could say, "IMMA PRESSIN CHARGES!" Sure, everyone and his grandmother's dog is picking on Linux these days, but no one really has a valid case.

EDIT: TomTom is by no means a small company.

[darrenn]

Always remember google and ibm use linux.

[samjh]

The Linux user community has nothing to worry about until Red Hat, Canonical, and Xandros drop their Linux distributions, and Linux infrastructure providers like IBM and Oracle stop supporting Linux. Thus far, support for Linux in the commercial sector has been increasing, and there are no signs of it stopping.

SCO has already been defeated. Their claims are and were, frivolous.

Microsoft's threats should be taken seriously enough for us to remove patent infringements if necessary, but not so seriously that we end up with our collective tails between our legs. Some of the infringements Microsoft "identified" sound bogus, anyway.

[argie]

Fortunately, there are still countries in the world with the sense to not support software patents.

[samjh]

Fortunately, there are still countries in the world with the sense to not support software patents.

Hmm. Patents are unfortunately necessary to stop unscrupulous people from profiteering off other people's hard work.

Unfortunately, software patents get abused by patent trolls, applications for obvious patents, patent applications for prior inventions, etc. There are also patents granted for things which should not be patented due to public interest, such as file formats and protocols.

Don't blame patents. Blame patent abusers.

[telmac]

I did not realize that there were legal problems with linux. that actually surprising, cause I thought that only UNIX had a copyright.

[samjh]

I did not realize that there were legal problems with linux. that actually surprising, cause I thought that only UNIX had a copyright.

SCO claimed copyright over Unix (and Linux too). They were defeated. And their pending claims don't stand much of a chance.

In a twist, Red Hat sued SCO for being a$$holes (well almost: the suit was an application for an injunction to stop SCO from taking further action against Linux), with decision pending the outcome of SCO v IBM.

[k2t0f12d]

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/XP.png

[haemulon]

Fortunately, there are still countries in the world with the sense to not support software patents.


If you go to the US Patent and Trademark office web site and do a search on Microsoft it'll pull up over 15,000 current Microsoft patent applications.

That list continues to grow.

Novell files and is granted software patents in Utah every month.

Most likely Microsoft will be granted patents around C#, some of those may eventually become applicable to Mono also.

These problems can't be taken too lightly, and maybe they're right, the Linux sources are becoming like a minefield.

With a distro like Ubuntu which is now so polished and useful, MS is bound to feel more of a threat, I hope the Linux sources will not be Microsofts way to eventually stop, slow or altogether completely set back Linux.

[DracoJesi]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-285768.html

"kFreeBSD offers an alternative in case Linux is branded illegal by the SCO case or other threats," the developers wrote. "In legal terms, Linux sources are like a minefield. kFreeBSD is much less vulnerable to such attacks."

This comment has been bothering me a lot. What proof does Debian have that the Linux kernel is infringing on any patents? Just because Microsoft says so, it doesn't mean that it is. If it was BSD that was popular, I bet a nickle that Microsoft would be saying the same thing about BSD.

If Linux was truly infringing on patents, Microsoft would have directly sued the big corporate Linux distributions like Redhat, Canonical, and Novell(who made a deal with Microsoft). Instead, we have Microsoft suing little companies like TomTom to induce fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I don't mind Debian supporting the BSD kernel, but I do mind Debian discrediting the Linux kernel and the people who code for it by accusing the coders of breaking patents.

By doing this, Debian is legitimizing Microsoft's claim with no proof behind it, and it's unnecessary for them to talk bad about Linux in order to promote their latest offering.

wait, why is Debian discrediting Linux, I thought Debian was a Linux Distro?...

I wouldn't be worried, how to you wipe out something so diverse and ever growing as Linux? stop new kernels at all cost? you know Linux would still be distributed, legally or not, people would still work on it,

I wouldn't feel bad about downloading Tux from an illegal torrent...

[yabbadabbadont]

Hmm. Patents are unfortunately necessary to stop unscrupulous people from profiteering off other people's hard work.

Unfortunately, software patents get abused by patent trolls, applications for obvious patents, patent applications for prior inventions, etc. There are also patents granted for things which should not be patented due to public interest, such as file formats and protocols.

Don't blame patents. Blame patent abusers.

Software patents didn't exist until the mid 1990's. Commercial software got along just fine without them by using (correctly) Copyright law.

[samjh]

Software patents didn't exist until the mid 1990's. Commercial software got along just fine without them by using (correctly) Copyright law.
The first software patent was granted in 1966 in the UK. European countries were granting software patents as early as the 1970s.

You are confusing the issue with enforceability of software patents in the courts, which were formally ruled upon by various courts in the US and Europe throughout the 1970s and 1990 (and were found enforceable in the US, UK, and Germany, among others).

[haemulon]

Hmm. Patents are unfortunately necessary to stop unscrupulous people from profiteering off other people's hard work.


Don't blame patents. Blame patent abusers.

Exactly how does this happen?

If you don't give the sources to the other party how do they get to profit from your work?

Software patents should not exist at all.

[billgoldberg]

I did not realize that there were legal problems with linux. that actually surprising, cause I thought that only UNIX had a copyright.

Unix and Linux are two entirely different things.

Nobody has any sort of copyright over Linux (well Torvalds has over the name, that's about it).

[k2t0f12d]

Unix and Linux are two entirely different things.

Nobody has any sort of copyright over Linux (well Torvalds has over the name, that's about it).Linux is totally copyrighted. Thousands of authors hold copyright to thousands of different pieces of the kernel code. Linus has copyright on the parts he writes, but not on the name "Linux". He has a registered trademark for that. Trademark law is completely different and has little or nothing at all to do with copyright law.

[yabbadabbadont]

The first software patent was granted in 1966 in the UK. European countries were granting software patents as early as the 1970s.

You are confusing the issue with enforceability of software patents in the courts, which were formally ruled upon by various courts in the US and Europe throughout the 1970s and 1990 (and were found enforceable in the US, UK, and Germany, among others).

Until the courts ruled them enforceable, they effectively didn't exist. Also, in the US at least, the patent office did not start issuing them until the courts ruled them legal. (I'll never get back all the hours I had to sit listening to conference calls with the company lawyers on this topic...)

[kamitsukai]

The first software patent was granted in 1966 in the UK. European countries were granting software patents as early as the 1970s.

You are confusing the issue with enforceability of software patents in the courts, which were formally ruled upon by various courts in the US and Europe throughout the 1970s and 1990 (and were found enforceable in the US, UK, and Germany, among others).

I thought that software patents didn't exist in Europe:confused::confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_Kingdom_patent_law

[samjh]

Software patents are recognised by the European Patent Office, in accordance with the European Patent Convention. However the enforcement of such patents are left up to individual member states.

In the UK, the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General Of Patents [2008] EWHC 518 (Pat) ruled that software patents should be granted in the UK in order to make UK software developers more competitive against their European counterparts.

The German Federal Court has also accepted the validity of software patents.

[MaxIBoy]

Copyright law (pre DCMA and with fair use provisions) is a much better solution than patent law.

[MikeTheC]

Microsoft has done everything else (just about) to try to kill the F/OSS movement and Linux. They couldn't crowd them out, they haven't been able to out-compete with them based on technology, or the nature of their source code (open and peer-reviewed vs. closed), nor on their per-seat licensing for their server OS, etc. Microsoft has seen a ton of competition on the server end and doesn't have the dominance in it that they would like to make everyone think that they do.

So now, desperate and basically out of other options, they've had to resort to legality-centric FUD and outright threats. In a lot of ways, this reminds me of that whole scene from "Hunt for Red October" where Jack Ryan is explaining to Capt. Mancuso that the only reason they've received orders from CentCom to sink Red October is the Soviets have exhausted every other option. Since lawyers (by their nature) are little more than leashed (sorry, I mean "on retainer") well-manicured pitbulls, they tend to scare people. Moreover, what they can't achieve by sicking their dogs on people they then try to get the U.S. court system to do for them (a.k.a. CentCom in HfRO).

It's disgusting, that's what it is. People wonder why I feel justified in hating Microsoft. Well, here's one pretty darned-good example.

[ranch hand]

+1

[schauerlich]

...ðat... ...Ðey... ...ðe... ...ðe... ...ðat... ...ðe... ...wið... ...ðe... ...ðreatening...

I thought we banned eth/thorn when LaRoza left.