This thread is so secret, I can't even give it a titlle

[Sand Lee]

OK, my question is, could it be possible for a closed source company to copy opensource code (exactly or partially), make a patent on it, then file a lawsuit claiming that such and such opensource developer infringed on their patent? I thought about this after reading a digg submission (http://digg.com/linux_unix/Will_Patent_Battles_End_Free_Linux). It sounds like bad news... 0_o

[jkblacker]

As I understand it, so long as the open-source developers could demonstrate prior art (i.e. they did it first), it would be impossible to (uphold the) patent.

[LaRoza]

OK, my question is, could it be possible for a closed source company to copy opensource code (exactly or partially), make a patent on it, then file a lawsuit claiming that such and such opensource developer infringed on their patent? I thought about this after reading a digg submission (http://digg.com/linux_unix/Will_Patent_Battles_End_Free_Linux). It sounds like bad news... 0_o

The GPL protects against this.

[mthakur2006]

i am genuinely worried.
also, please explain how the gpl protects against this, because no one knows that they copied?

[LaRoza]

i am genuinely worried.
also, please explain how the gpl protects against this, because no one knows that they copied?

Project Freedom has a feature under the GPL, someone tries to patent it, Project Freedom says "Hey! That is against the license!" and sues them.

[Dragonbite]

i am genuinely worried.
also, please explain how the gpl protects against this, because no one knows that they copied?

If it goes to trial and the company that copied it is filing a lawsuit then the infringing code may be pulled up and then the defendent has the opportunity to prove that it was pre-existing, or that it was present well before they have their code dated.

Then the counter-suit starts and it becomes fun!

If a closed-source vendor were to take open source code and use it that may work until somebody can blow the whistle, or otherwise somebody detects it. This can happen from an internal whistle-blower, an outside reverse-engineer, a lawsuit or the company gets bought out and the new owners look through the code (because not *all* companies are immoral, plus the possibility of a festering lawsuit that can ruin the company at some poiont in the future can be a deterent).

[Sand Lee]

If it goes to trial and the company that copied it is filing a lawsuit then the infringing code may be pulled up and then the defendent has the opportunity to prove that it was pre-existing, or that it was present well before they have their code dated.

[From an uninformed standpoint] How does an opensource developer "date" his code? and (if possible) what if he was too lazy or careless to do so?

[jgrabham]

OK, my question is, could it be possible for a closed source company to copy opensource code (exactly or partially), make a patent on it, then file a lawsuit claiming that such and such opensource developer infringed on their patent?

Have you been reading Microsoft's code? :lolflag:

[Dragonbite]

[From an uninformed standpoint] How does an opensource developer "date" his code? and (if possible) what if he was too lazy or careless to do so?

How would a closed-source developer "date" his code?

Especially when working with an organization, there is not much difference between an open source organization and a closed source one except one has to abide by the GPL and the other does not.

So proving the date and ownership issues should not be all that much different.

On the same token, even if there is only 1 developer involved the "burden of proof" should be be the same whether an open source or closed source model is used.

[t0p]

[From an uninformed standpoint] How does an opensource developer "date" his code? and (if possible) what if he was too lazy or careless to do so?

The GPL gets its validity from copyright laws. So, the Free/open source developer puts a copyright statement on his work, asserting his right to be identified as its creator, and that statement is dated.

As for the idea of a developer being too lazy or careless to do this: as copyright law and therefore the GPL require the copyright statement, doing this is an integral part of licensing your work under the GPL. Remember, software isn't Free/open source just because the developer decides it is. The developer has to actually say it in writing.

[bufsabre666]

Have you been reading Microsoft's code? :lolflag:

nice one bro

[Sand Lee]

The GPL gets its validity from copyright laws. So, the Free/open source developer puts a copyright statement on his work, asserting his right to be identified as its creator, and that statement is dated.

As for the idea of a developer being too lazy or careless to do this: as copyright law and therefore the GPL require the copyright statement, doing this is an integral part of licensing your work under the GPL. Remember, software isn't Free/open source just because the developer decides it is. The developer has to actually say it in writing.

Ahh, so that's it. Thanks for clearing it up (Dragonbite too)! My fears are now gone :guitar:
Oh, and no, I haven't been reading MS code lol

[Nekiruhs]

Have you been reading Microsoft's code? :lolflag:
You, sir, owe me a new keyboard for that one. And a cup of coffee...