Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal - Linux

This is a discussion on Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal - Linux ; http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...9/daily18.html ------ Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one of Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as JBoss Hibernate, violated the patents. Under terms ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

  1. Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...9/daily18.html

    ------
    Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one of
    Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as JBoss
    Hibernate, violated the patents.

    Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free, worldwide
    license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in a
    statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital firm
    Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related to
    claims on Red Hat products.

    In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000 from
    the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't immediately
    available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms of the
    settlement, a spokesperson says.

    "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat products
    are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company said in a
    statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a significant
    benefit to the open source community."
    ------

    Reactions from the freetards universe:

    http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190

    ------
    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, executive director 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."
    ------

    PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3"
    and "harmonious with GPLv2".

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741
    (Red Hat Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)

    ------
    You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was correct
    that this is the first known settlement involving patents that is
    harmonious with GPLv3. It is.

    It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how, but
    first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    ------

    ROFL

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  2. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:485239CC.83D4889C@web.de...
    > http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...9/daily18.html
    >
    > ------
    > Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    > with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one of
    > Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as JBoss
    > Hibernate, violated the patents.
    >
    > Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free, worldwide
    > license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in a
    > statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital firm
    > Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related to
    > claims on Red Hat products.
    >
    > In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000 from
    > the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't immediately
    > available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms of the
    > settlement, a spokesperson says.
    >
    > "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat products
    > are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company said in a
    > statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a significant
    > benefit to the open source community."
    > ------
    >
    > Reactions from the freetards universe:
    >
    > http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
    >
    > ------
    > 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, executive director 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."
    > ------
    >
    > PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3"
    > and "harmonious with GPLv2".
    >
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741
    > (Red Hat Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)
    >
    > ------
    > You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    > about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    > the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was correct
    > that this is the first known settlement involving patents that is
    > harmonious with GPLv3. It is.
    >
    > It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    > making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    > that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how, but
    > first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    > ------
    >
    > ROFL
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.
    >
    > --
    > http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    > (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    > be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    > too, whereas GNU cannot.)
    >



    I love the comment on this page:


    So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not other
    commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did? Didn't Red
    Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most evil thing ever
    to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I missing something or,
    despite carefully crafted words to create the illusion otherwise, has Red
    Hat just become a giant hypocrite?


    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:40:48 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    > news:485239CC.83D4889C@web.de...
    >> http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...9/daily18.html
    >>
    >> ------
    >> Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    >> with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one of
    >> Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as JBoss
    >> Hibernate, violated the patents.
    >>
    >> Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free, worldwide
    >> license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in a
    >> statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital firm
    >> Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related to
    >> claims on Red Hat products.
    >>
    >> In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000 from
    >> the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't immediately
    >> available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms of the
    >> settlement, a spokesperson says.
    >>
    >> "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat products
    >> are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company said in a
    >> statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a significant
    >> benefit to the open source community."
    >> ------
    >>
    >> Reactions from the freetards universe:
    >>
    >> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
    >>
    >> ------
    >> 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, executive director 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."
    >> ------
    >>
    >> PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3"
    >> and "harmonious with GPLv2".
    >>
    >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741
    >> (Red Hat Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)
    >>
    >> ------
    >> You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    >> about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    >> the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was correct
    >> that this is the first known settlement involving patents that is
    >> harmonious with GPLv3. It is.
    >>
    >> It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    >> making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    >> that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how, but
    >> first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    >> ------
    >>
    >> ROFL
    >>
    >> regards,
    >> alexander.
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    >> (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    >> be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    >> too, whereas GNU cannot.)
    >>

    >
    >
    > I love the comment on this page:
    >
    >
    > So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    > developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not other
    > commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did? Didn't Red
    > Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most evil thing ever
    > to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I missing something or,
    > despite carefully crafted words to create the illusion otherwise, has Red
    > Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >

    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html


    That's how I read it.
    Get ready for the Linux loons to rationalize and explain away the entire
    thing.

    So when is the Boycott Redhat site going up Spamowitz?



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:40:48 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    > news:485239CC.83D4889C@web.de...
    >> http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...es/2008/06/09/

    daily18.html
    >>
    >> ------
    >> Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    >> with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one
    >> of Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as
    >> JBoss Hibernate, violated the patents.
    >>
    >> Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free, worldwide
    >> license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in a
    >> statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital
    >> firm Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related
    >> to claims on Red Hat products.
    >>
    >> In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000 from
    >> the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't immediately
    >> available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms of the
    >> settlement, a spokesperson says.
    >>
    >> "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat products
    >> are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company said in a
    >> statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a significant
    >> benefit to the open source community." ------
    >>
    >> Reactions from the freetards universe:
    >>
    >> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
    >>
    >> ------
    >> 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, executive director 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."
    >> ------
    >>
    >> PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3" and
    >> "harmonious with GPLv2".
    >>
    >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741 (Red Hat
    >> Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)
    >>
    >> ------
    >> You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    >> about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    >> the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was
    >> correct that this is the first known settlement involving patents that
    >> is harmonious with GPLv3. It is.
    >>
    >> It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    >> making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    >> that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how, but
    >> first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    >> ------
    >>
    >> ROFL
    >>
    >> regards,
    >> alexander.
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    >> (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    >> be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    >> too, whereas GNU cannot.)
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I love the comment on this page:
    >
    >
    > So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    > developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not
    > other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did?
    > Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most
    > evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I
    > missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to create the
    > illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >

    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    I like this:

    <http://practical-tech.com/business/o...d-hat-one-big-
    legal-step-for-open-source/>

    Another day , another patent lawsuit settled. Where the script changes is
    that Red Hat’s settlement covers not just its programs, but any open-
    source programs connected with the settlement.

    “Typically when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on getting
    safety for itself,” said Rob Tiller, Red Hat’s VP and assistant general
    counsel for intellectual property, in a statement. “But that was not
    enough for us, we wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who
    place trust in us, and the open source community, whose considerable
    efforts benefit our business.”
    .... and this:

    <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-
    suits.aspx>

    Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red Hat's
    customers.

    "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust
    in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit
    our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob Tiller.

    --
    Rick

  5. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:18 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:40:48 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >> news:485239CC.83D4889C@web.de...
    >>> http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...es/2008/06/09/

    daily18.html
    >>>
    >>> ------
    >>> Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    >>> with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one
    >>> of Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as
    >>> JBoss Hibernate, violated the patents.
    >>>
    >>> Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free,
    >>> worldwide license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in
    >>> a statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital
    >>> firm Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related
    >>> to claims on Red Hat products.
    >>>
    >>> In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000
    >>> from the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't
    >>> immediately available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms
    >>> of the settlement, a spokesperson says.
    >>>
    >>> "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat
    >>> products are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company
    >>> said in a statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a
    >>> significant benefit to the open source community." ------
    >>>
    >>> Reactions from the freetards universe:
    >>>
    >>> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
    >>>
    >>> ------
    >>> 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, executive director 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."
    >>> ------
    >>>
    >>> PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3" and
    >>> "harmonious with GPLv2".
    >>>
    >>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741 (Red Hat
    >>> Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)
    >>>
    >>> ------
    >>> You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    >>> about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    >>> the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was
    >>> correct that this is the first known settlement involving patents that
    >>> is harmonious with GPLv3. It is.
    >>>
    >>> It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    >>> making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    >>> that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how,
    >>> but first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    >>> ------
    >>>
    >>> ROFL
    >>>
    >>> regards,
    >>> alexander.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    >>> (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it
    >>> can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said
    >>> backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I love the comment on this page:
    >>
    >>
    >> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for
    >> upstream developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product
    >> but not other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft
    >> did? Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the
    >> most evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I
    >> missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to create the
    >> illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >>

    >>
    >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html

    >
    > That's how I read it.
    > Get ready for the Linux loons to rationalize and explain away the entire
    > thing.
    >
    > So when is the Boycott Redhat site going up Spamowitz?


    Maybe you missed the parts where the OSS community is generally unhappy
    that Red Hat settled... and you missed the parts where Red Hat says the
    settlement covers upstream and downstream distributors, as well as the
    community.



    --
    Rick

  6. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:7K-dnVK_m7kQOM_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:18 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:40:48 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >>> news:485239CC.83D4889C@web.de...
    >>>> http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/tr...es/2008/06/09/

    > daily18.html
    >>>>
    >>>> ------
    >>>> Essentially, Red Hat has licensed the patents in question, which deal
    >>>> with computer databases, from DataTern. DataTern had claimed that one
    >>>> of Red Hat's business-software products, a database program known as
    >>>> JBoss Hibernate, violated the patents.
    >>>>
    >>>> Under terms of the settlement, customers have a royalty-free,
    >>>> worldwide license to use any and all Red Hat products, Red Hat says in
    >>>> a statement. DataTern and its parent company, British venture capital
    >>>> firm Amphion Innovations, also have promised not to file suits related
    >>>> to claims on Red Hat products.
    >>>>
    >>>> In a statement, Amphion Innovations said it would take in $800,000
    >>>> from the settlement after costs. An Amphion spokesperson wasn't
    >>>> immediately available for comment. Red Hat isn't commenting on terms
    >>>> of the settlement, a spokesperson says.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat
    >>>> products are protected with respect to Red Hat products," the company
    >>>> said in a statement posted to its Web site. "This broad coverage is a
    >>>> significant benefit to the open source community." ------
    >>>>
    >>>> Reactions from the freetards universe:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
    >>>>
    >>>> ------
    >>>> 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, executive director 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."
    >>>> ------
    >>>>
    >>>> PJ of Groklaw also claims that the deal is "Compatible with GPLv3" and
    >>>> "harmonious with GPLv2".
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80611191302741 (Red Hat
    >>>> Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3)
    >>>>
    >>>> ------
    >>>> You've probably been wondering why I've been quiet, when there is news
    >>>> about a patent settlement between Red Hat and Firestar and DataTern in
    >>>> the JBoss litigation. It's because I wanted to be positive I was
    >>>> correct that this is the first known settlement involving patents that
    >>>> is harmonious with GPLv3. It is.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the
    >>>> making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way
    >>>> that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how,
    >>>> but first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, 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.)
    >>>> ------
    >>>>
    >>>> ROFL
    >>>>
    >>>> regards,
    >>>> alexander.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    >>>> (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it
    >>>> can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said
    >>>> backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I love the comment on this page:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for
    >>> upstream developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product
    >>> but not other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft
    >>> did? Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the
    >>> most evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I
    >>> missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to create the
    >>> illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >>>

    >>>
    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html

    >>
    >> That's how I read it.
    >> Get ready for the Linux loons to rationalize and explain away the entire
    >> thing.
    >>
    >> So when is the Boycott Redhat site going up Spamowitz?

    >
    > Maybe you missed the parts where the OSS community is generally unhappy
    > that Red Hat settled... and you missed the parts where Red Hat says the
    > settlement covers upstream and downstream distributors, as well as the
    > community.



    The patents don't protect the "community" - it only protects Redhat
    customers. From your very own link:



    Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red Hat's
    customers.

    "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit
    our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob Tiller.

    If someone isn't a paying Redhat customer then they get ZERO protection.
    Quite hypocritical because Redhat screamed bloody murder when Novell signed
    what is effectively the exact same deal with Microsoft.



    Red Hat scathing over MS/Novell deal
    Published: 03 Nov 2006 13:19 GMT

    Redhat said:

    "[The MS/Novell announcement] means Linux has won... Open source innovation
    delivers better software and better value," Red Hat's response said. "Openly
    defined standards create interoperability everyone can implement. It doesn't
    require a deal between two companies."


    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284538,00.htm


    Emphasis on the "It doesn't require a deal between two companies" - Gee...
    isn't Redhat a party in a deal between two companies? And in a deal that
    provides patent protection for it's customers.

    Sounds just like Microsoft-Novell to me.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  7. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    (snip)
    > The patents don't protect the "community" - it only protects Redhat
    > customers. From your very own link:
    >
    > <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-

    suits.aspx>
    >
    >
    > Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    > protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    > Hat's customers.
    >
    > "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    > in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit
    > our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob
    > Tiller.


    "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    in us, and the open source community",

    .... covered our customers and the open source community.

    >
    >
    > If someone isn't a paying Redhat customer then they get ZERO protection.
    > Quite hypocritical because Redhat screamed bloody murder when Novell
    > signed what is effectively the exact same deal with Microsoft.
    >
    >

    (snip)

    I have given you other resources that say the settlement protects RH
    customers .. and the OSS community.
    --
    Rick

  8. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    Linonut wrote:


    > Are you contemptuous of this proprietary entity?
    >
    > http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653
    >
    > Microsoft Litigation
    >
    > Narrow-minded (and perhaps naive) idiot.


    How could anyone be contemptuous of anything posted at the exquisitely
    researched Groklaw blog? Well... just maybe:

    "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why
    the Sky Isn't Falling
    Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST
    Contributed by: PJ"
    http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html

    Hmmm... Perhaps a little fact checking is in order when reading
    Free Software propaganda. From the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Seventh Circuit:

    "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-1332, grants
    exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts,
    those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant
    state law to interpret them. Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187
    F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999)."
    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...9.05-1172.html

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
    inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the
    state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the
    Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770


  9. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > How could anyone be contemptuous of anything posted at the exquisitely
    > researched Groklaw blog? Well... just maybe:
    >
    > "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why
    > the Sky Isn't Falling
    > http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html
    >
    > Hmmm... Perhaps a little fact checking is in order when reading
    > Free Software propaganda. From the United States Court of Appeals for
    > the Seventh Circuit:
    >
    > "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-1332, grants
    > exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts,
    > those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant
    > state law to interpret them. Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187
    > F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999)."
    > http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...9.05-1172.html


    Construe.

    Sounds to me like there's no contradiction between Groklaw and the
    Federal court, until somebody becomes bad.

    In any case, that document also says this:

    The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
    transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
    comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
    the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
    provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
    a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
    person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
    produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
    MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
    ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
    without the other.").

    Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
    the GPL.

    --
    If I'd had some set idea of a finish line, don't you think I would have
    crossed it years ago?
    -- Bill Gates

  10. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    Linonut wrote:

    > Construe.
    >
    > Sounds to me like there's no contradiction between Groklaw and the
    > Federal court, until somebody becomes bad.
    >
    > In any case, that document also says this:
    >
    > The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
    > transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
    > comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
    > the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
    > provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
    > a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
    > person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
    > produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
    > MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
    > ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
    > without the other.").
    >
    > Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
    > the GPL.
    >


    Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:

    "Transfer of ownership.
    (1)
    The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part
    by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed
    by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
    succession.
    (2)
    Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
    subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC 106],
    may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The
    owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of
    that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the
    copyright owner by this title."

    Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers ownership of
    the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is falling.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
    Falling, Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST --- Pamela Jones at
    Groklaw



  11. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:7K-dnU6_m7mnSM_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    > (snip)
    >> The patents don't protect the "community" - it only protects Redhat
    >> customers. From your very own link:
    >>
    >> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-

    > suits.aspx>
    >>
    >>
    >> Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    >> protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    >> Hat's customers.
    >>
    >> "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    >> in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit
    >> our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob
    >> Tiller.

    >
    > "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    > in us, and the open source community",
    >
    > ... covered our customers and the open source community.


    That's a nice "sound bite" but it means absolutely nothing. It's the exact
    same deal that Novell has. No difference. And if it's so good and great for
    the open source community then why isn't the open source community
    embracing this wonderful deal? Why are they up in arms over this and upset
    with Ubuntu?


    >>
    >>
    >> If someone isn't a paying Redhat customer then they get ZERO protection.
    >> Quite hypocritical because Redhat screamed bloody murder when Novell
    >> signed what is effectively the exact same deal with Microsoft.
    >>
    >>

    > (snip)
    >
    > I have given you other resources that say the settlement protects RH
    > customers .. and the OSS community.


    Your "resource" is nothing but a "feel good" statement that some mouth
    piece from Redhat used in a press release in a attempt to difuse the
    situation. The fact is that this is exactly the same deal as what Novell
    has. There is no difference. None.

    > --
    > Rick



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:11:58 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:7K-dnU6_m7mnSM_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@supernews.com...
    >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Ezekiel wrote: (snip)
    >>> The patents don't protect the "community" - it only protects Redhat
    >>> customers. From your very own link:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-

    >> suits.aspx>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    >>> protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    >>> Hat's customers.
    >>>
    >>> "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place
    >>> trust in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts
    >>> benefit our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer
    >>> Rob Tiller.

    >>
    >> "We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS, who place trust
    >> in us, and the open source community",
    >>
    >> ... covered our customers and the open source community.

    >
    > That's a nice "sound bite" but it means absolutely nothing. It's the
    > exact same deal that Novell has. No difference. And if it's so good and
    > great for the open source community then why isn't the open source
    > community embracing this wonderful deal? Why are they up in arms over
    > this and upset with Ubuntu?


    Red Hats says ..."We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS,
    who place trust in us, and the open source community"

    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> If someone isn't a paying Redhat customer then they get ZERO
    >>> protection. Quite hypocritical because Redhat screamed bloody murder
    >>> when Novell signed what is effectively the exact same deal with
    >>> Microsoft.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> (snip)
    >>
    >> I have given you other resources that say the settlement protects RH
    >> customers .. and the OSS community.

    >
    > Your "resource" is nothing but a "feel good" statement that some mouth
    > piece from Redhat used in a press release in a attempt to difuse the
    > situation. The fact is that this is exactly the same deal as what Novell
    > has. There is no difference. None.


    Translation: you're just ignoring anything you don't agree with.

    --
    Rick

  13. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal


    Rick wrote:
    [...]
    > Red Hats says ..."We wanted broad provisions that covered OUR CUSTOMERS,
    > who place trust in us, and the open source community"


    Customers aside, the open source community is protected under the deal
    to the extent that community can safely donate code that Red Hat
    includes in its *branded* products (upstream developers won't be sued by
    Amphion and its subsidiaries for releasing predecessor code), but I
    really doubt that open source community as a whole (LOL) can possibly
    succeed in negotiating a trademark license with Red Hat to become a
    downstream distributor of its branded products. See
    http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-...4204_TM_Gd.pdf

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  14. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
    >> transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
    >> comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
    >> the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
    >> provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
    >> a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
    >> person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
    >> produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
    >> MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
    >> ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
    >> without the other.").
    >>
    >> Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
    >> the GPL.

    >
    > Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:
    >
    > "Transfer of ownership.
    > (1)
    > The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part
    > by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed
    > by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
    > succession.
    > (2)
    > Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
    > subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC 106],
    > may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The
    > owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of
    > that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the
    > copyright owner by this title."
    >
    > Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers ownership of
    > the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is falling.


    Why did you ignore the "subdivided" or "in part" part?

    Deliberate obfuscsation, or did you just not think it through?

    Also, although I don't know this for sure, it would seem that you can
    transfer rights, and yet also keep them, in the same way that you can
    give out a copy of software, yet keep your own copy.

    Really, I'm not sure that your gambit of making flip one-off legal
    assertions is valid, given that lawyers and judges spend a lot of time
    trying to figure out the actual meaning of legalese as it pertains to
    specific complaints.

    It sounds to me more like you simply float a kind of legal innuendo
    against the GPL, hoping that it sticks in the mind of the reader.

    Kind of like a Microsoft shill using "tone" to denigrate his opponent.

    Are you a shill for Microsoft, or some other corporation?

    --
    Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much
    of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if
    it weren't so irritating.
    -- Bill Gates, "Why I Hate Spam" in Microsoft PressPass (2003)

  15. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    Linonut wrote:
    > * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
    >>> transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
    >>> comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the
    >>> rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided
    >>> by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words, a
    >>> copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
    >>> person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
    >>> produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
    >>> MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
    >>> ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
    >>> without the other.").
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the
    >>> methodology of the GPL.

    >> Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:
    >>
    >> "Transfer of ownership. (1) The ownership of a copyright may be
    >> transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by
    >> operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal
    >> property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. (2) Any of
    >> the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
    >> subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC
    >> 106], may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned
    >> separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is
    >> entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and
    >> remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."
    >>
    >> Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers
    >> ownership of the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is
    >> falling.

    > . . .


    > Why did you ignore the "subdivided" or "in part" part?


    I ignored the "subdivided" or "in part" part because the GPL is a
    non-exclusive copyright license.

    17 USC sec. 101 Definitions states:

    A "transfer of copyright ownership" is an assignment, mortgage,
    exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
    hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
    comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
    place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.

    See the "but not including a nonexclusive license" phrase?

    17 USC sec. 201(d) is subtitled "Transfer of ownership" and thus is
    utterly inapplicable to the nonexclusive GPL.

    Savvy now Kemo Sabay?

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
    inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the
    state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the
    Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770









  16. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > 17 USC sec. 101 Definitions states:
    >
    > A "transfer of copyright ownership" is an assignment, mortgage,
    > exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
    > hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
    > comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
    > place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
    >
    > See the "but not including a nonexclusive license" phrase?
    >
    > 17 USC sec. 201(d) is subtitled "Transfer of ownership" and thus is
    > utterly inapplicable to the nonexclusive GPL.
    >
    > Savvy now Kemo Sabay?


    No.

    You may want to write a more complete opinion in legal venue.

    --
    It's fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons
    of failure.
    -- Bill Gates

  17. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:

    > * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > Linonut wrote:
    > >
    > >> The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
    > >> transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
    > >> comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
    > >> the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
    > >> provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
    > >> a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
    > >> person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
    > >> produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
    > >> MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
    > >> ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
    > >> without the other.").
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
    > >> the GPL.


    You've confused a couple similar things, I'm afraid. I will illustrate
    with an example. I am the copyright owner on numerous works (as are all
    of us here, probably). Let's say we have one particular work of mine, W.

    I have, among other things, the exclusive right to make copies of that
    work and the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work.

    You can I could execute a contract under which I give you permission to
    make and distribute copies. If we do that, I have not *transferred*
    those rights to you. I have given you a license that gives my
    permission for you to make and distribute copies, thus making your acts
    no longer a copyright violation.

    If someone else comes along and starts making copies and distributing
    them, that doesn't legally concern you. I'm the one who has to take
    action if the cad is to stopped. (Of course, we might have in our
    contract that I promise to enforce my copyrights against third parties
    for your benefit...).

    Or I could actually *transfer* the rights to you. In effect, I would
    then have given you ownership of part of the copyright. When that third
    party comes along and starts making and distributing copies, *you* could
    go after him, because I've transferred ownership or partial ownership of
    the copyright to you.

    Pretty much every software license (including GPL) involves the first
    case. You do not receive any ownership interest in the covered
    software. You just receive permission from the copyright owner to do
    certain things that the law says you need permission to do if you are
    not the owner.

    Think if it this way. Suppose we have a building that contains a number
    of residential units. The first case above corresponds to renting or
    leasing out those units. The second case corresponds to turning the
    building into condominiums and selling off the individual units.

    In software, a license like, say, a Microsoft license, is like the
    landlord letting us rent our units. A free software license that is a
    contract (pretty much all of them except the GPL, assuming the attempt
    by the GPL authors to avoid contract works) is like a lifetime lease
    that has no ongoing fees, and a free software license that is just a
    bare license (what the GPL authors intend) is like...is like...well,
    nothing really good comes to mind with the landlord analogy! :-)

    > >
    > > Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:
    > >
    > > "Transfer of ownership.
    > > (1)
    > > The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part
    > > by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed
    > > by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
    > > succession.
    > > (2)
    > > Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
    > > subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC 106],
    > > may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The
    > > owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of
    > > that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the
    > > copyright owner by this title."
    > >
    > > Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers ownership of
    > > the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is falling.

    >
    > Why did you ignore the "subdivided" or "in part" part?
    >
    > Deliberate obfuscsation, or did you just not think it through?


    He didn't ignore it. He simply caught the distinction between
    transferring rights and licensing rights.

    > Also, although I don't know this for sure, it would seem that you can
    > transfer rights, and yet also keep them, in the same way that you can
    > give out a copy of software, yet keep your own copy.


    Sort of. In the case of software licensing, as I've described above,
    you aren't transferring rights.

    In the case where you really do transfer rights, you can indeed both
    transfer and keep them (or transfer them to more than one person).
    Copyright rights are similar to personal property. People can jointly
    own items of personal property. Heck, that ability is the basis of many
    good sitcom scripts, like when Rob Petrie and Jerry Helper jointly
    bought a boat on the Dick van Dyke Show, and hilarity ensued. Or when
    Bart, Milhouse, and Martin pooled their resources to buy a copy of
    Radioactive Man #1 in episode 7F21 of The Simpsons, and again, hilarity
    ensued.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    Linonut writes:
    > As far as I can tell, rjack is simply a troll.


    Yup. He's the dim one too.

    -Miles

    --
    The car has become... an article of dress without which we feel uncertain,
    unclad, and incomplete. [Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, 1964]

  19. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    * Miles Bader peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut writes:
    >> As far as I can tell, rjack is simply a troll.

    >
    > Yup. He's the dim one too.
    >
    > -Miles


    Does that mean Terekhov is the smart one?

    --
    Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the
    coffee shop and go to jobs.
    -- Bill Gates

  20. Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

    Linonut writes:

    > * Miles Bader peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>> As far as I can tell, rjack is simply a troll.

    >>
    >> Yup. He's the dim one too.
    >>
    >> -Miles

    >
    > Does that mean Terekhov is the smart one?


    Well, handing you your arse on a plate time and time again doesn't
    actually qualify him as smart since it's so easy to do. However I
    suspect he is a lot smarter than most in COLA and provides links to his
    information as opposed to you, who just lies and fabricates stuff to big
    yourself up and to get another doggy choc from your master Roy.

    Heel Liarnut! Heel!

    --
    If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
    *less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast