Legalities of Linux distributions such as Ubuntu?

[LewisR]

Hi everyone,

I have been meaning to try out a Linux distro but before doing so wanted to do all the research. Everything I see seems to be pointing me towards Ubuntu as the way to start.

I became concerned/confused when reading that certain companies (e.g. Novell) are now selling "patent protection" along with the commercial versions of their distros... and some even include a Microsoft covenant not to sue.

What is that all about?

I thought Linux distros were (for the most part) made up entirely of free software? Does this mean that were I to simply use a Linux OS such as Ubuntu, I would potentially be open to a patent-infringement lawsuit?

Surely this can't be correct.... but thanks in advance for any clarification!

Best,
Lewis

[namegame]

No, you're fine. When companies such as Novell charge for their linux distribution, you are essentially paying for dedicated customer support among other benefits.

I would like to direct you to http://www.mandriva.com/ it offers three possible Linux distributions, and they also break down the differences.

[PeterJS]

Ubuntu does everything it can to remain legal, and more than that Free. Microsoft has been threatening Linux for years with 200 some unspecified patents.Everything in the baseline linux kernel and Ubuntu install are completely Free, but that doesn't prevent them from independently re-implementing patented technologies unknowingly. As long as no one can inspect the 200 patents there is no way to know for sure if they are bluffing or not. I'm willing to take the fact they haven't sued any one ever as good evidence they are bluffing. If they had proof that would stand up in court they would have take somebody to court with it by now.

One other thing to keep in mind is that patent law is completely divorced from reality. Both the double click and the scrolling progress bar that are so ubiquitous in all operating systems and applications are patented.

[tango_ninja]

you're fine :) namegame is right, if you're paying for a linux distro you're usually paying for support or some sort of additional, not-your-typical-run-of-the-mill features.

as for ubuntu's support....well you're basically reading it :)

[Entity`]

The basic reason for this threat from microsoft is to keep what users it has from switching to linux. In my thinking, this works on about 75-88% of all people who actually care. Experienced linux users still remain cool knowing that this must be a bluff. And since microsoft hasn't sued yet, we can assure you that you are pretty safe as far as legal issues go. Besides, who in their RIGHT mind would sue over something so small AND so ubiquitous as the double-click function? Thats stupid; but then again I have heard of more idiotic things than that.

[sub2007]

As far as I understand (and I'm not an expert on this so sorry if I get it wrong) but the Ubuntu you get out of the box is legal as it's composed of entirely free software. If they're talking about suing over things like double-click then my idea is completely wrong though :P But yeah, my understanding is that you can add at your own risk the ability to add Restricted codecs like DVD playback (and it will warn you of this when you try to install them, in fact I don't even think they are in Ubuntu's repos). You add them at your own risk but they may be illegal depending on what country you live in. Technically if the relevant authorities found those codecs on your computer you could be liable to be sued (I think) although I really doubt it would ever come to that. But Microsoft are trying to scare us Linux users into thinking that they might sue us unless we use one of the distros that MS has struck a deal with (or go back to the almighty Windows).

Put it this way, I'm really not worried and I don't think many users on the forum would be.

[Tyche]

Novell has added proprietary programs to Suse Linux, which is not in a normal Linux distribution. In addition, they have entered into agreements with Microsoft in order to use some of Microsoft's software, such as Silverlight. Again, NORMAL Linux distributions don't have any Microsoft software attached. You only have to worry about patent probelms with Novell's Suse.

[westyonfire]

Just wondering- Which distros have made deals with MS? and what are the nature of these deals?

[sub2007]

The three I know of are Suse, Linspire and Xandros. I don't know about any others. The nature of the deal is that Microsoft will not sue owners of those distros for patent infringement but Microsoft have a joint patent agreement with Novell. Wikipedia explains it better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft

[waggingwabbit]

As far as I understand (and I'm not an expert on this so sorry if I get it wrong) but the Ubuntu you get out of the box is legal as it's composed of entirely free software. If they're talking about suing over things like double-click then my idea is completely wrong though :P But yeah, my understanding is that you can add at your own risk the ability to add Restricted codecs like MP3 and DVD playback (and it will warn you of this when you try to install them). You add them at your own risk but they may be illegal depending on what country you live in. Technically if the relevant authorities found those codecs on your computer you could be liable to be sued (I think) although I really doubt it would ever come to that. But Microsoft are trying to scare us Linux users into thinking that they might sue us unless we use one of the distros that MS has struck a deal with (or go back to the almighty Windows).

Put it this way, I'm really not worried and I don't think many users on the forum would be.

sued for having mp3 codec support on ubuntu? are you serious?

[billgoldberg]

Don't fall for those MS scare tactics.

You're save.

And if you are worried about those mp3, dvd, ... licences. If you ever owned a microsoft licence (didn't pirate it) you already paid for those and are fine.

[sub2007]

Actually I think I got that wrong, I've done some more research and I think the situation with MP3 is that if you own a free/open source decoder (as we all do on Linux) then you're not required to pay for a license (even though it is proprietary). Sorry for the confusion, I'll edit my original post.

Encrypted DVD playback is definitely not legal though, at least in the UK and USA. It's under the DMCA that you cannot use any technology to attempt to avert the copy protection on a DVD, which I'm pretty sure includes libdvdcss. There are commercial products for Linux that allow legal DVD playback but I'm fairly sure that encrypted DVD playback is illegal. I might have to look into that one a bit more though.

Ethically I have no objections whatsoever with playing DVDs, it's just from a purely legal standpoint...

[mister_pink]

I think there's several issues here which are being confused, all of which are legally grey areas.

Firstly there's the mp3 issue, which is simply that there is a patent on the codec. I think this one is the least likely to cause problems, since I believe the patent holder has basically said they're not interested in causing trouble for open source users.

Next up is DVDs, for which you need libdvdcss. This could potentially be in violation of the DMCA, but is again unlikely to cause trouble. It often gets confused with decss, a different thing which did have some legal troubles.

And now around to what you were initially talking about, patents. Microsoft claimed that linux and associated programs infringed on a couple of hundred of their patents, but have since refused to specify which and have said nothing else about it. Most people think its just idle threats.

The best place to learn about this sort of thing is on wikipedia, its full of information about free software as a lot of free software developers share the same sort of ideals as the wikipedia project! It may be a bit biased because of that though.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft

Finally, if there ever were to be any lawsuits, chances are they'd be against Canonical and other companies, rather than any individuals.
Finally finally, I'm not a lawyer so no suing me if you get sued :P

Re: Above about DVDs - I would've hoped that as a Londoner you'd realise that despite the American's insistence that they run the world the DMCA is a piece of _American_ copyright law and applies to the UK no more than the death penalty for murder. There are similar European laws but the key point is that they all give exceptions for fair use - libdvdcss constitutes fair use as there is no other way for me to watch DVDs which I have paid for. If anything the makers of DVDs are in fact behaving illegally by not enabling me to watch my own DVDs! Again I point you to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss

[bodhi.zazen]

IMO, Microsoft is built on patent infringement, starting with their source code and going onto Micorsoft Word (who recalls word perfect ?) and IE Explorer (who recalls Netscape ?). They have claims to "point and click" ie the mouse interface, but even there they copied the idea from Macintosh.


echo "People who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" > Microsoft

:lolflag:

[Ozor Mox]

Encrypted DVD playback is definitely not legal though, at least in the UK and USA. It's under the DMCA that you cannot use any technology to attempt to avert the copy protection on a DVD, which I'm pretty sure includes libdvdcss.

The DMCA does not apply in the UK, and the UK also does not recognise software patents (thank god!) Everything that comes with Ubuntu is completely legal, and almost all free software. Some of the repository packages are questionable I think, but mostly in America, elsewhere you are safe.

Then again, who really worries about a knock on their front door when they download w32codecs?!

[ZarathustraDK]

The whole 'promise-not-to-sue'-thing is one big pile of FUD aimed at scaring users not to switch.

You're COMPLETELY safe with linux, here's why :

1. Microsoft waving patents at us means nothing as long as they don't specify what exactly is wrong.

2. When "Linux" don't know what to be scared of then MS can't take Linux to court. It'd be like me saying 'pay me $$$ or you'll go to jail for no apparent reason', which doesn't fly anywhere.

3. IF MS specifies exactly what's wrong and where the infringements lie, then big deal, Linux will say 'sorry' with a smirk on it's face and change the code so it doesn't infringe.

So you see, they either got nothing, or whatever they got is irrelevant. They're just a Frankenstein-balloon full of hot air, scary yes, but completely harmless.

[Lostincyberspace]

IMO, Microsoft is built on patent infringement, starting with their source code and going onto Micorsoft Word (who recalls word perfect ?) and IE Explorer (who recalls Netscape ?). They have claims to "point and click" ie the mouse interface, but even there they copied the idea from Macintosh.


echo "People who live in glass houses should not throw bricks" > Microsoft:lolflag:

Who In turn copied/Stole(really not figuratively) it from xerox.

[LewisR]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

What really got my attention was the SCO business of several years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies .... in which SCO sued Linux end-users, such as AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.

I am not a lawyer, but my reading here is that these suits were based upon alleged copyright violations, as opposed to patent infringement - is my reading accurate?

Thanks again, I really appreciate everyone's engagement on this.

Best,
Lewis

[Lostincyberspace]

yes that is right I really hate Sco-group I have talked with one of the VP's and he is as stupid as Bill Gates

[ZarathustraDK]

Heh, last I heard of SCO they were spinning in a ditch somewhere after getting raped by IBM-Nazgül. :lolflag:

[Ozor Mox]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading here is that these suits were based upon alleged copyright violations, as opposed to patent infringement - is my reading accurate?

Yes it is, and when forced to show the offending code it turned out it was under the BSD license. They never actually got together any evidence that Linux stole their code, and have now all but collapsed while Linux thunders on. Microsoft have started out the same way, with unsubstantiated threats, let's hope they end the same way as SCO too.

[Lostincyberspace]

I could get you pictures from inside their offices if you wanted to pay me for I am to lazy to do it for free.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Actually I think I got that wrong, I've done some more research and I think the situation with MP3 is that if you own a free/open source decoder (as we all do on Linux) then you're not required to pay for a license (even though it is proprietary). Sorry for the confusion, I'll edit my original post.

Encrypted DVD playback is definitely not legal though, at least in the UK and USA. It's under the DMCA that you cannot use any technology to attempt to avert the copy protection on a DVD, which I'm pretty sure includes libdvdcss. There are commercial products for Linux that allow legal DVD playback but I'm fairly sure that encrypted DVD playback is illegal. I might have to look into that one a bit more though.

Ethically I have no objections whatsoever with playing DVDs, it's just from a purely legal standpoint...

Yeh but I often ignore this "Legal" crap you speak of.
Though yes by all respects MP3 right now is essentially more open soruce then DVD because the owners of the format really dont mind open source implementation....
a very good step in the right direction for sure concerning MP3.

[alzie]

If it's truly a concern, You can buy them @ https://shop.fluendo.com/

Their MP3 decoder is free tho

[drascus]

Well truth is no matter what Software you use you could be sued for patent infringment. It is one of the dangers everyone risks in running software. For instance a while back there was person who had a patent that threatened to sue apple. And when apple didn't pony up the dough they started threatening apples customers with a lawsuite. software patents are dangerous and bad for software development in general. You may be Okay and usually a patent holder will give a period of time to come into compliance something like 30 days I think. However this is not an issue that you can escape from if you use another OS like MAC or Windows you can be sued in any case.
Watch this video by Richard Stallman on the Dangers of Software Patents for more:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6390784544771380326&q=Richard+Stallman&ei=w5gOSLa1KpHmqgLzwJW3BA&hl=en
Also check out the links in my signature to help fight agains this major issue with patents and to protect users freedoms.

[saulgoode]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

What really got my attention was the SCO business of several years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies .... in which SCO sued Linux end-users, such as AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.

The SCO controversy was about copyrights, not patents. And SCO was proven to be the one violating the licenses.

[az]

I thought Linux distros were (for the most part) made up entirely of free software? Does this mean that were I to simply use a Linux OS such as Ubuntu, I would potentially be open to a patent-infringement lawsuit?


The patents apply to the authors of the code. For example, if someone were to make their living writing code and they violated a patents, the owner of the patent would sue the author for the money s/he made.

One interesting thing about software patents and Microsoft is that Microsoft is a bigger victim of software patents than any other player. They pay more in legal fees defending against other companies that claim they violate patents than any other software vendor on the planet.

I reckon they spend more on lawyers than on programmers.

[revpfil]

There is still a lot of grey area on software patents, simply because a patent is a very specific thing. It must describe an exact process, and any other process which achieves the same result is not covered by the patent. For example, I could build a machine that blows up a balloon, but my patent would not prevent you from doing the same thing with your lungs. Similarly in software patents (currently at least, some IP holders are trying very hard to change this), a reverse engineered product, like a codec, would be legal if it used a process separate from the one patented. This is also easier to confirm than proprietary (secret) closed source copyright infringement, because patents must be disclosed and made public record when they are filed. However, if the codec in question contains processes meant to institute some form of rights management, it would be illegal to reverse engineer or distribute due to DMCA, in the US, as is DeCSS of any form.

As for SCO, last I heard, they had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year and had their stock delisted. All lawsuits they are involved in have been stayed pending reorganization.

[drascus]

The patents apply to the authors of the code
This is a common misunderstanding users can also be held responsible for Software patent infringment. At least thats the way it is in the US

There is still a lot of grey area on software patents, simply because a patent is a very specific thing. It must describe an exact process
While this is true to a degree Software patents are usually general enough so as to make their coverage as broad as possible. In this way they can sue people for processes which are similar to theirs. see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041003041632172
This is a famous case Sun thought it was going to win. But this patent was so broad nearly no one was sure what it covered and as a result Kodak won.

[saulgoode]

While this is true to a degree Software patents are usually general enough so as to make their coverage as broad as possible. In this way they can sue people for processes which are similar to theirs. see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041003041632172
This is a famous case Sun thought it was going to win. But this patent was so broad nearly no one was sure what it covered and as a result Kodak won.

A patent being overly general is a double-edged sword: just as the plaintiff would argue broad coverage of the claims of his patent, the court can use broad criteria in determining whether prior art exists.

[hardyn]

Realistically even if you were sued by a large software player, regardless of your annual take home, its much less then they would have to pay a lawyer to have to chase you; a cease-and-desist order may be the worst i would expect.

now, i have heard of large engineering firms being taken to the cleaners for 100s of seat piracy infraction but as i understand from a CAD software sales person, the worst he had ever heard for a single seat license infraction was a strongly worded registered letter suggesting that they contact their local dealer immediately.

Like said above, its about scaring joe/jane-average off, these claims as yet have no teeth.



Now, as a bit of a conspiracy theorist, it wouldnt surprise if the big players that are truly threatened by FOSS could insert copyrighted code into FOSS projects with the intention of adding some traction to the copyright issues.

[fatality_uk]

It is PERFECTLY LEGAL to use, distribute and/or even profit (as long as licenses agreements are followed) from Linux.

Microsoft's stance over this matter in nothing but facile, childish and legally dubious. If Linux were a single company, Microsoft's claims would have to be quickly asserted in the courts.

Companies can also suffer defamation and as it is well known, Microsoft and it's employees, through interviews and various forums, have YET to provide patents to which any area of Linux makes claim or infringement. This is defamation, as they are making an assertion without substantive proof.

Please visit this web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?PDA=1?%3F%3Fid=1564
If Linux were infringing on patents, why would Microsoft spend time and money defending it products with a presentation like this? Simply take a Linux vendor to court. They haven't as yet, why?

Now Microsoft are not one to shy away from taking legal action where they believe that they have a justified case to bring. However, to date, no action has been brought against a Linux vendor.

I suspect that over the coming months/years, we will see a lot more posts by Microsoft asserting these fatuous patents claims (and maybe even a lot more forum posts questioning the legal status of said claim) however, until Microsoft provide substantive proof, i will repeat:

It is PERFECTLY LEGAL to use, distribute and/or even profit (as long as licenses agreements are followed) from Linux.

[quinnten83]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

What really got my attention was the SCO business of several years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies .... in which SCO sued Linux end-users, such as AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.

I am not a lawyer, but my reading here is that these suits were based upon alleged copyright violations, as opposed to patent infringement - is my reading accurate?

Thanks again, I really appreciate everyone's engagement on this.

Best,
Lewis
you can follow this whole affair on rthe groklaw website.

[quinnten83]

T

I reckon they spend more on lawyers than on programmers.

It shows in the quality of their work.

[cb951303]

governments all over the world started to choose linux. so I believe you are safe :)

[mkendall]

Topically tangential, but software patents are about the stupidest things I've heard of. Copyright, yes. But patents? To me, it makes as much sense as taking out a patent on Haiku about lilies. "I own the patent on Lily Haiku, so no one else can write haiku about lilies without purchasing a license from me. And you'd better hurry on any lily sonnets. I'm about to register a patent on that."

Don't get me started on the idiocy that's DMCA.

[perce]

This is a common misunderstanding users can also be held responsible for Software patent infringment. At least thats the way it is in the US


This doesn't apply to normal patents, does it? if for example Ford infringed a GM's patent, and I bought a Ford car, could GM sue me?

[fatality_uk]

This doesn't apply to normal patents, does it? if for example Ford infringed a GM's patent, and I bought a Ford car, could GM sue me?

Not in a month of Sundays. If Microsoft ever did want to enforce one of these "ghost" patents, they would only have legal redress to enforce a action against the creator that included any material, not an end user.

[AdamWill]

That's not correct. I looked it up a while back because someone on planet.gnome.org asked. The U.S. Patents Act covers the unlicensed *use*, not just distribution, of a patented device.

Of course, they never *would* sue you, because that would be absurd. They could get, say, fifty cents out of you, for whatever the invention was. It would not make economic sense, ever. So it wouldn't ever happen.

[bodhi.zazen]

I would like to mention GNU and copy-left :

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

If you want you can use a distro that includes software released only under GNU copyleft :

http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html

gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/), a GNU/Linux distribution based on Debian and Ubuntu, with sponsorship from the FSF.
Ututo (https://www.ututo.org/www/), a GNU/Linux distribution based on Gentoo. It was the first fully free GNU/Linux system recognized by the GNU Project.
Dynebolic (http://dynebolic.org/), a GNU/Linux distribution that places special emphasis on audio and video editing.
Musix GNU+Linux (https://www.musix.org.ar/wiki/index.php/Documentation), a GNU+Linux distribution based on Knoppix, with special emphasis on audio production.
BLAG (http://www.blagblagblag.org/), BLAG Linux and GNU, a GNU/Linux distribution based on Fedora.
GNUstep Live (http://livecd.gnustep.org/), a GNU/Linux distribution with a user interface based on GNUstep, a free implementation of the Cocoa/OpenStep framework.


There are other options listed on the page as well ...