Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:31 am Post subject:
Quite curious. First off, I don't think it applies to anyone whatsoever because there is no product named "Open Office"...it's named "OpenOffice.org". Glad to see Sun cares enough about it to get the name right in their legal filings
Second, I don't think it really should be surprising. The moment I heard about the Microsoft pact the first thing I could think of is that Sun will use the cross-licensing agreements and such to improve the interoperability of StarOffice with MS Office, but the work won't be donated back into OpenOffice.org due to licensing restrictions. For the recent past, the only things they haven't open sourced are the legacy portions of StarOffice that were covered by third party contract (fonts, clip art, WordPerfect filters, etc.). But this particular filing seems to indicate they're at least considering undertaking more closed source work on StarOffice in the near future. Yet another reason why I both love and hate OpenOffice and Sun.
But this particular filing seems to indicate they're at least considering undertaking more closed source work on StarOffice in the near future. Yet another reason why I both love and hate OpenOffice and Sun.
Probably depends on relative quality of the closed source work. If it's not worth the extra effort and money, why would they do it.
I guess you could consider it a compliment to the OO.org developers that Sun hasn't actually used this option... Just to give this a positive spin .
Basically, the immediate threat is file filters using the MS Office patented XML schemas. The long-term threat is having to scour through all of Sun's OOo contributions as an independent developer to determine whether or not they infringe on MS patents which independent developers aren't allowed to use. Either all non-Sun developers need to review and not use or risk getting sued by MS. A very chilling thought indeed.
Basically, the immediate threat is file filters using the MS Office patented XML schemas. The long-term threat is having to scour through all of Sun's OOo contributions as an independent developer to determine whether or not they infringe on MS patents which independent developers aren't allowed to use. Either all non-Sun developers need to review and not use or risk getting sued by MS. A very chilling thought indeed.
Well, let us hope that Sun will be so nice as to include the patented code with a big fat warning header. But I am slightly confused how this meshes with the GPL. Can one piece of code be both open source and restricted by patent? Or is it the licensing structure Sun used for OOo built to circumvent this?
If it is both, then MS might have problems enforcing the deal. I recall the legalese mentioned licensees and users. But as long as the derivatives are free downloads, with no official support, no money is made, so suing is rather pointless.
That means MS would have to go after each and every OOo user. They've tried that with fileswappers - too much work. The cost for MS of sending me a letter to pay up, and then collecting (after I forget about the first letter, and so and so forth) are unlikely to be worth it and pretty likely to set off antitrust opinions, even if the practice were legal..
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject:
ovvldc wrote:
Well, let us hope that Sun will be so nice as to include the patented code with a big fat warning header.
Only problem I forsee is that Sun may already be using patents and just not aware of it...but they no longer have any impetus to search. Software patents are so broad, though, that it's probably impossible to search. Even in my own work work job type work I make tweaks to digital filter algorithms and the like without spending weeks trolling through the patent database to see if anyone else may have patented my improvements already.
There's definitely a difference between willful infringement of a patent and inadvertant infringement. That's one of the things I do hate about patents. Even if you think of something all on your own in a sealed box like on a game show, someone else may still own it. That's just bull***t as far as I'm concerned. There is no such thing as ownership of thought...only expression of thought should be afforded protection.
ovvldc wrote:
But I am slightly confused how this meshes with the GPL. Can one piece of code be both open source and restricted by patent? Or is it the licensing structure Sun used for OOo built to circumvent this?
The GPL itself does have clauses related to patents and patent infringement in it that basically imply that if patent licensing restrictions are imposed that are contrary to the obligations under the GPL, the program cannot be distributed at all. The rights to distribute it go away. That's where the Sun/MS agreement kills community involvement in OOo...Sun would still retain the rights to distribute OOo under their own terms but the LGPL/GPL redistribution license is invalidated.
There are caveats though that allow the software to be free software only in certain geographical areas. It's also easily feasible to do open source software that is defensively patented...e.g. the patent holder does not impose any type of licensing for open source software.
SISSL's 2.0 section makes the distribution subject to third party patent claims and 2.1d offers no patent licensing whatsoever for versions of the original code that are mixed with modifications, implying that in a patent licensing dispute SISSL cannot be used as a license to redistribute modified versions of OOo. A single infringing patent (or conscious inclusion of an infringing patent such as the Microsoft XML Schema patents) thus negates the entire ability for non-Sun OOo derivatives and distributions to exist.
While legally MS could sue end-users, I would suspect they would just turn the crank on other distros like Ximian's distro, NeoOffice, the translation projects, and various OOo CD distributors. If you kill the movement at the root there's only so far it could spread until a lack of updates causes it to wither away and die.
Well, let us hope that Sun will be so nice as to include the patented code with a big fat warning header.
That's just bull***t as far as I'm concerned. There is no such thing as ownership of thought...only expression of thought should be afforded protection.
The GPL itself does have clauses related to patents and patent infringement in it that basically imply that if patent licensing restrictions are imposed that are contrary to the obligations under the GPL, the program cannot be distributed at all. The rights to distribute it go away.
:[. They have it nailed down, then? Well, I agree with your sentiment, but am not in a position to change much. I hope the European Parliament stays more sane about it, as we don't allow for software patents (yet).
But as far as my understanding of patent law goes, broad patents like on using XML for a document format can't be granted anymore. OOo is already using them - it's out there. So they must have patented a tiny subset. But then again, fighting that claim is not much of an option against M$.
How would they go about finding end users with it installed? Will they install spyware on everyone's computers, invading our privacy? What if someone burns NeoOffice/J to a CD, and gives it to someone, how would they find that person? It just doesn't seem technically possible to me.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 pm Post subject:
Well, the most direct way for them to find end-users of Neo/J would be to subpoena me, Patrick, and the mirrors to try and get server logs for anyone who's downloaded binaries and source. Beyond that there isn't any tracking as Neo/J doesn't even have its own registration pages that it tries to sweet talk you into filling out
Even if they couldn't track end users, holding onto the code, using it, or distributing it would still be illegal since any patent violations would nullify the GPL for all copies of the software and its source code. Software patents are a sure way to destroy open source, at least until folks can come up with a new unique solution that doesn't infringe upon the patent. Only companies really have deep enough pockets to litigate and overturn stupid patents. Individuals face no chance
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
.
