Linux Vendor Red Hat Settles Patent Suits, Says It's Protecting the Open Source Community

Wed Jun 11 14:04:00 -0700 2008
manage

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.

Not so fast, Bruce

Wed Jun 11 15:35:44 -0700 2008
manage

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.

This is hardly a victory for the community.

-t

Not so fast, Bruce
Wed Jun 11 15:39:51 -0700 2008
manage

Actually, it includes all derivative works of both the upstream and the RHAT software. This is necessary for GPL compliance, and they knew it.

Not so fast, Bruce
Wed Jun 11 16:17:42 -0700 2008
manage

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.

-t

Not so fast, Bruce
Wed Jun 11 16:40:42 -0700 2008
manage

Their wording was "derivative works of, or combination products of". It seems to me that combination product would cover a distribution.

Moglen said it was cool. I would like to see the actual language.

Not so fast, Bruce
Wed Jun 11 17:18:56 -0700 2008
manage

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.

-t

IANAL, but...

Thu Jun 12 12:19:34 -0700 2008
manage

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.

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 12:23:32 -0700 2008
manage

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.

-t

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 12:42:42 -0700 2008
manage

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.

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 12:56:42 -0700 2008
manage

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.

-t

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 13:19:03 -0700 2008
manage

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.

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 13:23:58 -0700 2008
manage

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?

-t

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 17:41:42 -0700 2008
manage

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.

IANAL, but...
Thu Jun 12 18:26:21 -0700 2008
manage

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.

-t

IANAL, but...
Fri Jun 13 00:18:52 -0700 2008
manage

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.

Title wrong

Fri Jun 13 13:23:10 -0700 2008
manage

You wrote:

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.

Title wrong
Fri Jun 13 14:02:06 -0700 2008
manage

Hi Bradley! Oops. Thanks, that's fixed now.