Red Hat has settled
patent suits with Firestar Software, Inc., Amphion, and
Datatern on a patent covering the Object-Relational Database
Model, which those companies asserted was used in the jBoss
Hibernate package - not in Red Hat Linux.
The covered products include all software distributed under Red
Hat's brands, as well as upstream predecessor versions. The
settlement also protects derivative works of, or combination
products using, the covered products from any patent claim based
in any respect on the covered products. Essentially, all that
have innovated to create, or that will innovate with, software
distributed under Red Hat brands are protected, as are Red Hat
customers.
This is very different from patent agreements made by Novell and
other Linux distributions with Microsoft, which protect their own
customers exclusively, excluding the Open Source community that
develops their software.
Full terms of the settlement and patent licenses are not yet
available.
Richard Fontana, patent attorney for Red Hat and formerly of the
Software Freedom Law Center, said
Red Hat's settlement satisfies the most stringent patent
provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with the letter
and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent safety
for developers, distributors and users of open source software.
Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, said
If we can judge from Red Hat's statement, the deal is good
for the free software community. I would not want to treat that
as certain; they might have chosen not to mention some negative
side. Be that as it may, it was an unfortunate mistake to refer
to patents as "intellectual property"; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.
Red Hat should know better than to do that.
Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center, and general
counsel of the Free Software Foundation, said
"Red Hat's settlement of outstanding patent litigation
on terms that provide additional protection to other members of
the community upstream and downstream from Red Hat is a positive
contribution to the resources for community patent defense. We
would hope to see more settlements of this kind--in which parties
secure more than their own particular legal advantage in relation
to the third-party patent risk of the whole FOSS community--when
commercial redistributors of FOSS choose to settle patent
litigation. SFLC welcomes Red Hat's efforts on the
community's behalf."
Per their description, RHAT has secured protection only for
upstream developers of software that RHAT distributes and
downstream users and developers using or further developing and
distributing RHAT products.
RHAT would then seem to be conveying software with a
discriminatory patent license which, when that software is
covered by GPL, is forbidden.
I think I understand the GPL requirement to include a
"license to make (etc.)" regarding the patents
contained in a work. But, "derivative" is a copyright
concept that is narrower than the patent rights granted.
So that you know where I'm coming from, Moglen (via RMS) also
said that Red Hat's seat licenses were cool although I
can't see how they didn't impose a forbidden
"additional restriction". IANAL, I suppose.
Moglen matters most in as much as SFLC is the main enforcer,
these days. Doesn't make me entirely comfortable. And I
don't understand why they didn't aim for something more
like Rosen's OSL.
But to the point:
I'm not talking about combinations or derivatives. I'm
talking about separate lines of development under GPL. I think
that distribution under GPL of a work covered by a patent
effectively immunizes all GPL works that practice that
patent. The RHAT settlement sounds like it does not promise that.
Maybe I'm not properly understanding the settlement or your
concern. That said, it appears what RHAT has done is
essentially protect against litigation over this patent for any
version of Hibernate whether it is: (1) a version currently
developed by RHAT; (2) based on a prior version from before RHAT
took over jBoss; or, (3) forked from the current RHAT version and
further developed elsewhere by somebody else.
Sounds like a GPL compatible settlement to me.
If your beef is this patent covering a completely different code
base, then...saysomebody were to develop said completely
different code-base with a completely different function but used
the same technique as in JBoss' Hibernate, they could (I
think) effectively argue that this settlement protects them from
patent litigation. At the worst, they would have to grab
the code from jBoss' Hibernate that does the same thing and
modify it to work in their project. Viola, covered.
Given that they would be developing under the GPL, it might make
sense for them to yank the code from jBoss anyway for inclusion
in their project, just so as to avoid re-inventing the wheel, so
to speak.
I think that the fact I have the right to download Highbernate
gives me the freedom to independently construct an entirely
separate GPL program that RHAT never touches and enjoy patent
protection -- but from the press releases, it sounds like that
isn't the agreement RHAT thinks that they reached.
But I think that's exactly the agreement they reached.
Maybe the press release isn't worded properly. I
don't know. But that is the exact impression I
get. You could download an old version of the Hibernate
from some third party that was never touched by RHAT, the current
RHAT version, or a modified version of the RHAT version from me
or any other third party, then indpendently construct your
entirely separate GPL program...and you would be covered.
That's how I read it anyway. Caveat emptor.
Well, now we all await, with baited breath, the settlement.
The press release strongly suggests that your interpretation is
not correct. The very least that RHAT is guilty of is sleazy
marketing. I hope that you are right about the agreement
but I sincerely doubt it.
Also, literally downloading the code is not, in my view, a
necessary step. The existence of the offer to the general public
is sufficient.
My suspicion is that they think they found a GPL loophole.
Redhat has already addressed the loophole concern. From
here, I got this:
"...here's the answer I got from Richard Fontana, Open
Source Licensing and Patent Counsel, Red Hat, to my question
about whether this is the first known GPLv3 patent agreement that
works:
Most patent settlements and similar agreements are
confidential, but to my knowledge this is the first patent
settlement that satisfies the requirements of GPL version 3.
Indeed, it really goes further than GPLv3 in the degree to
which upstream and downstream parties receive safety from the
patents at issue here. (And this is not a case of
trying to find a loophole in the GPL, but rather a desire on
our part to reach an agreement that provided broad patent
protection for developers, distributors and users, while
complying fully with the conditions of the licenses of the
software we and our community distribute.)"
I don't know if you follow Groklaw at all, but I find it the
best place to read tech news of a legal nature.
I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like a "non-denial
denial".
That does not promise free GPL-ed practice of the patent.
It retains the ties to particular projects which are selected
exclusively by Red Hat. And it has weasel-words about
"conditions of the licenses."
I still suspsect that Fontana interprets GPL wrong and that RHAT
has covered little more than their own, private interests. The
FLOSS world has been driven for years by weasel words; why should
this be any different?
Well, you could discuss it with SFLC. Moglen is a pretty smart
guy, and he's always steered me straight. He sent me that
quote directly. Given that he's general counsel of FSF, it
sounds as if they buy it. I sent the press release to
RMS, but he's not replied yet.
I'm eager to hear what Moglen, RMS, and (should we get to see
it and I can't see how we can't) the relevant bits of the
settlement read (one assumes they keep the money part private and
other extraneous details).
I generally agree that Moglen is smart. Other than when using a
voice of preppy reserve I might have aimed higher than
"pretty..." there. And he's good at speed chess, if
you've seen him live and off the cuff. Damn! Our other friend
in that area, Mr. Rosen, is no slouch either, I might add.
My issue with Moglen and RMS re Red Hat is that they never really
convinced me that RHAT's subscription contract and EULA for
their proprietary software product didn't mean that RHAT was
violating GPL when distributing GPL code to enterprise
subscribers. I gave what I still think is a good reading to that
effect (way more certain than my reading of the RHAT press
release -- I mean a reading I'd take to court) and got back
basically "we see it differently". It seemed like their
reading might have been more politically expedient than legally
sound and it bugs me to this day.
My issue with Moglen and RMS re Red Hat is that they never
really convinced me that RHAT's subscription contract and
EULA for their proprietary software product didn't mean
that RHAT was violating GPL when distributing GPL code to
enterprise subscribers.
I previously took this up with FSF and the then-predecessor of
SFLC. They studied it very carefully and their conclusion was
that they didn't like it but couldn't do anything about
it.
RMS gave me his comment. It's non-committal because he's
not seen the terms. I suspect that Moglen has seen them,
but Richard hadn't even heard of the settlement until I told
him.
Richard Stallman, executive director of the Free Software
Foundation
The title is wrong. Since 1984, RMS has held the title of
President of FSF and Chairman of its Board and never any other
title.
Only two people have ever held the title of Executive Director:
me (2001-2005) and Peter Brown (2005-present). Bob Chassell and
Peter Salus were effectively acting as Executive Directors during
their tenures, but didn't use that title.
Linux Vendor Red Hat Settles Patent Suits, Says It's Protecting the Open Source Community
Red Hat has settled patent suits with Firestar Software, Inc., Amphion, and Datatern on a patent covering the Object-Relational Database Model, which those companies asserted was used in the jBoss Hibernate package - not in Red Hat Linux.
The covered products include all software distributed under Red Hat's brands, as well as upstream predecessor versions. The settlement also protects derivative works of, or combination products using, the covered products from any patent claim based in any respect on the covered products. Essentially, all that have innovated to create, or that will innovate with, software distributed under Red Hat brands are protected, as are Red Hat customers.
This is very different from patent agreements made by Novell and other Linux distributions with Microsoft, which protect their own customers exclusively, excluding the Open Source community that develops their software.
Full terms of the settlement and patent licenses are not yet available.
Richard Fontana, patent attorney for Red Hat and formerly of the Software Freedom Law Center, said
Red Hat's settlement satisfies the most stringent patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with the letter and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent safety for developers, distributors and users of open source software.
Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, said
If we can judge from Red Hat's statement, the deal is good for the free software community. I would not want to treat that as certain; they might have chosen not to mention some negative side. Be that as it may, it was an unfortunate mistake to refer to patents as "intellectual property"; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html. Red Hat should know better than to do that.
Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center, and general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, said
"Red Hat's settlement of outstanding patent litigation on terms that provide additional protection to other members of the community upstream and downstream from Red Hat is a positive contribution to the resources for community patent defense. We would hope to see more settlements of this kind--in which parties secure more than their own particular legal advantage in relation to the third-party patent risk of the whole FOSS community--when commercial redistributors of FOSS choose to settle patent litigation. SFLC welcomes Red Hat's efforts on the community's behalf."
Red Hat further discusses the settlement on their web site. Red Hat still faces a suit by IP Innovation LLC, a "patent troll" company staffed with ex-Microsoft executives.