Re: [PATCH] Updating real-time and nanokernel maintainersy
From: Jamie Lokier
Date: Sun Dec 21 2003 - 17:53:53 EST
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There are several cases where this came up: RCU is one obvious one, but
> there were also issues with Intel's initial submissions of some of the
> networking drivers where they didn't want to originally release under the
> GPL because of worrying about patents they owned.
It's commonly understood that patents licensed to _all_ GPL'd projects
are ok by the GPL, but when they are limited to _specific_ GPL'd
projects they would violate the GPL.
So for example it would not be acceptable _if_ Red Hat's patents were
licensed just for Red Hat Linux, but it's fine because Red Hat
licenses its patents for all GPL projects.
In the Linux kernel, 2.6.0, I see two minor problems and one major.
First the minors:
1. Code under arch/m68k contains this notice:
You are hereby granted a copyright license to use, modify,
and distribute the SOFTWARE so long as this entire notice is
retained without alteration in any modified and/or
redistributed versions, and that such modified versions are
clearly identified as such. No licenses are granted by
implication, estoppel or otherwise under any patents or
trademarks of Motorola, Inc.
The copyright is a BSD-like license, no problem there.
But the part about patent licenses appears to either contradict the
GPL, or imply that there are no patents to license anyway.
2. Documentation/sound/alsa/SB-Live-mixer.txt draws our attention to
10 patents that are relevant to the SB-Live-mixer implementation.
It doesn't say we're licensed to use them.
3. The MTD flash translation layer patent(s) may not be acceptably
licensed. It's obvious that they are against the spirit of GPL;
I'm not sure if they satisfy the letter, and that's after
reading the GPL carefully (but I'm not a lawyer). From
drivers/mtd/ftl.c:
LEGAL NOTE: The FTL format is patented by M-Systems. They have
granted a license for its use with PCMCIA devices:
"M-Systems grants a royalty-free, non-exclusive license under
any presently existing M-Systems intellectual property rights
necessary for the design and development of FTL-compatible
drivers, file systems and utilities using the data formats
with PCMCIA PC Cards as described in the PCMCIA Flash
Translation Layer (FTL) Specification."
Use of the FTL format for non-PCMCIA applications may be an
infringement of these patents. For additional information,
contact M-Systems (http://www.m-sys.com) directly.
The difficulty is that a person is not free to use the code in
ftl.c (and some other files) on any computer they want, nor to
take the code and use it in other ways.
This paragraph is from the the preamble of the GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by
software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that
redistributors of a free program will individually obtain
patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary.
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It isn't clearly stated whether that means everyone's free use
generally, or everyone's free use provided they are only using it
on a PCMCIA device.
If the latter is permitted, then I hazard that everyone's free
use provided they are only using it on Red Hat Linux is also
permitted. That sounds absurd, so by reductio ad absurdum
the MTD license is _not_ sufficient license to include the code
in drivers/mtd/ in any GPL project, including Linux.
Finally, the config help entry for CONFIG_FTL has this to say:
You may find that the algorithms used in this code are
patented unless you live in the Free World where software
patents aren't legal - in the USA you are only permitted to
use this on PCMCIA hardware, although under the terms of the
GPL you're obviously permitted to copy, modify and
distribute the code as you wish. Just not use it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the author is correct, then it _is_ permitted to copy, modify and
distribute code, and the patent restriction comes into play _only_
when the code is used. In other words, distributing GPL'd source
which has patent-infringing uses is fine for the distributor; only the
person who uses the code is infringing and may be liable.
However I venture to suggest the author of the config help entry is
not a lawyer either, and we should not take his words too precisely.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/