7 ms·

Red Hat's new patent counterclaim: GPL violation

126 points by esolyt 14y ago

vhf 14y ago
My only hope in this double-case is that if TPS offers an even settlement, RedHat refuses it. Fighting GPL violations is the "good" side, patent trolling the "bad".
slowpoke 14y ago
Could we (as in, everyone) please stop referring to programs in general as "apps"? It's retarded. An "app" is a specific kind of program for a smartphone. mount isn't such a program. Sorry, this just bugged me.
- delinka 14y ago
  I'm with wikipedia on this one: "Application software, also known as an application or an app, is computer software designed to help the user to perform specific tasks." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_application
  - pubby 14y ago
    Application software is such a vague and undescriptive word that it's better to just use the terms "program" and "software" as they're impossible to misuse or argue about. Wikipedia uses the term "utility" to refer to programs like mount, although again, just call it a program and be done with it. (this is just a general remark, not a reply)
- jere 14y ago
  Here's one of those retarded people: http://youtu.be/RhD5lIHxCN0?t=1m29s http://youtu.be/RhD5lIHxCN0?t=1m29s
- amalcon 14y ago
  The term "app" was in use before smartphones even existed, so no.
- swang 14y ago
  Could we (as in, everyone) please stop referring to something we find stupid or dumb in general as "retarded"? It's offensive. Sorry, this just bugged me.
  - baddox 14y ago
    If your best argument for why someone should stop doing something is that "it's offensive," I will have trouble taking your side.
    - kevinpet 14y ago
      "it's retarded" appears to take on the place in a paragraph where an actual argument or reason would go, but it isn't. It's just a childish phrase used to indicate dislike for something. If you don't like the "it's offensive to use a phrase indicating some form of developmental disorder as a pejorative", then please consider the argument that it accomplishes and communicates nothing except the fact that the speaker / writer lacks the ability or motivation to articulate his objections.
    - natrius 14y ago
      When given a choice between two otherwise equivalent options, most non-sociopaths will choose the option that is less likely to offend their audience.
      - rimantas 14y ago
        Fuck the audience. If they are so easily offended they should get therapy instead of calling others sociopaths. Offence is taken, not given.
        Karunamon 14y ago
        However, if you're attempting to get a point across, you generally do better by keeping social norms in mind. Offending your audience instantly makes them think about whatever "horrible" thing you just said and not on whatever point you're trying to communicate. Put another way, if nobody is getting your point, perhaps the problem isn't with the audience :) (I am, however, going to steal that "offense is taken, not given" line for future (ab)use)
- gruseom 14y ago
  "App" doesn't imply smartphones. It has been used this way since at least the 80s: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22killer+app%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1990&num=10 https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22kil...
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >An "app" is a specific kind of program for a smartphone. No, "app" is short for "application". The term "killer app" has been around long before there was such a thing as a smartphone. Stop being bothered by such trivial matters, moreso when you don't know what you're talking about.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>Since free software is so pervasive these days, it might not be very hard to find something within a company's product portfolio that depends greatly on free or open source software. Once discovered, all it takes is a claim of license violation like this one to shut down that software That paragraph actually makes it sound scary to even use open source software when they actually mean only GPL'ed software and that too only when modified and distributed/sold.
- cjbprime 14y ago
  > That paragraph actually makes it sound scary to even use open source software when they actually mean only GPL'ed software and that too only when modified and distributed/sold. No, you have to comply with the GPL regardless of whether you've modified the source that you're distributing. (As in this case: I'd be surprised if Twin Peaks modified mount -- I don't see why they'd need to.)
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    You completely missed the point. There's a lot of open source code that isn't GPL. Many licenses don't require the code to be distributed, even if it's changed. The sentence from the article makes it sound like all open source code is GPL.
    - bo1024 14y ago
      Yes, but the poster 'recoiledsnake' made a separate mistake, stating that modification to GPL code is required for it to be vulnerable to lawsuits. As cjbprime stated, that isn't true; using the code is enough for it to be covered.
      - josephlord 14y ago
        Distribution not use is required for the GPL to restrict you. But you are right that modification is irrelevant.
eurleif 14y ago
>Since both of Twin Peaks' products are released under a proprietary license, there was no source code of any changes it made to mount released, which is a violation of the GPLv2. Seems like Twin Peaks could resolve this by just releasing the source code to their version of mount. Maybe Red Hat will be able to get damages out of it, but if Twin Peaks releases the code in a timely fashion, I doubt Red Hat will be able to get an injunction against their product sales. (IANAL.) Meanwhile, the patent suit goes on.
- graue 14y ago
  The GPL has a clause saying that if its terms are violated, all rights granted to the violator by the GPL are terminated. So if Twin Peaks did indeed copy Red Hat's mount code as alleged, they would never be allowed to distribute that code again (without specific permission).
  - xtdx 14y ago
    Term 5? All that says is if you don't accept the terms, you don't get to use the software. There's no irrevocable termination of rights. At worst, all they have to do is download a new copy of mount and presto, they have a new license. [err, that's for gpl2. gpl3 has a more complicated termination procedure.] ok, so in light of gpl3, they just need to go back and get a gpl2 copy of mount. It's not like mount has changed all that much, I'm sure the 2007 version will suffice. Or they could just write their own. How many lines of code are we talking about here?
    - graue 14y ago
      Term 4 in GPLv2. "Any attempt otherwise to copy ... will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
      - xtdx 14y ago
        Read right over that. But I suspect they can still just download another copy, as the second download would be a new offer, and they can then agree and comply with that one.
lbarrow 14y ago
I think the blog title is a bit sensational here. 'Patent trolls', at least as I understand the term, do not produce products. That's the whole point: they're trolls because they do nothing but sue people, without adding any value themselves. Twin Peaks does produce products, so they aren't a troll. Red Hat has just found an interesting way to counter-sue in a fairly ordinary patent dispute. The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.
- SCdF 14y ago
  That and it's a one-time counter claim for this specific situation. From the title I presumed that they had somehow made a 'generic' weapon that could be used to shut down any patient troll.
  - pilif 14y ago
    Suing a patent troll for GPL violations is impossible by definition. A patent troll is a non-practicing entity, so they don't produce anything (but lawsuits) and thus they don't distribute software and conversely can't be sued for GPL violations. If whatever company that is suing on patent grounds is also producing software (like this current case), then they are not a patent troll by the most common definition of the term but just plain aholes.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      Nah, a patent troll is anyone who trolls with patents. That doesn't need to be the only thing they do. The classic example, SCO, had actual products which weren't related in any way to their patent suits.
      - trotsky 14y ago
        No, a patent troll is a non-practicing entity (NPE). The specific reason they're dangerous is because they aren't subject to counter claims. You can't come along and redefine a word simply because you don't understand it.
baddox 14y ago
"Intellectual property" as a socially and legally recognized concept is nonsensical and harmful, even in instances like the GPL where it's intended to increase freedom.
- rayiner 14y ago
  [citation needed]
- cwp 14y ago
  I've started using the older term "monopoly" instead of "property". Respect for property rights is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it's really hard to argue against it without sounding like some crazed hippie. Arguing against monopolies is much more respectable.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- zdw 14y ago
  Usually this argument is summed up more succinctly by adding two words to the phrase: "is neither"
- astrodust 14y ago
  If we could live off of a handful of ideas and had no want of food, shelter, or clothing, I'd be in complete agreement.
  - baddox 14y ago
    We (the human race) would be worse off if we only had a handful of words or numbers, yet I believe that respecting words and numbers as property is nonsensical and harmful.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Your fallacious argument intrigues me. Fallacious because we can still live quite well without there being intellectual property. Could you expand upon your theme? Perhaps I'm not following.
monochromatic 14y ago
That's great, except it would be totally ineffectual against a real troll. If you're not making anything, you're likely not violating the GPL.
- zurn 14y ago
  You could use it against the patent troll's masters (eg. Mosaid)
huhtenberg 14y ago
This is not going to be effective unless Red Hat really pushes for damages. Shutting down Twin Peaks products is not a big deal, they will just release the source of their mount.mfs and/or rewrite the mount, and then push out a new version that doesn't violate mount's license.
- warp 14y ago
  Except that GPLv2 doesn't work like that. Once the license is violated you permanently lose the rights granted by the license. So even if Twin Peaks fixes their stuff and comes back into compliance, they do not get their rights back automatically -- the copyright holders have to explicitly give them back these rights. This is one of the important differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
  - morsch 14y ago
    Wait, so when you're dealing with GPLv3 stuff, you do get the license for redistribution back automatically?
    - warp 14y ago
      Yes. See [1] and [2]. [1] http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section8 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section8
  - huhtenberg 14y ago
    Where's this stated exactly in the license?

126 points by esolyt 14y ago

vhf 14y ago

My only hope in this double-case is that if TPS offers an even settlement, RedHat refuses it. Fighting GPL violations is the "good" side, patent trolling the "bad".

slowpoke 14y ago

Could we (as in, everyone) please stop referring to programs in general as "apps"? It's retarded. An "app" is a specific kind of program for a smartphone. mount isn't such a program. Sorry, this just bugged me.

delinka 14y ago
I'm with wikipedia on this one: "Application software, also known as an application or an app, is computer software designed to help the user to perform specific tasks." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_application
- pubby 14y ago
  Application software is such a vague and undescriptive word that it's better to just use the terms "program" and "software" as they're impossible to misuse or argue about. Wikipedia uses the term "utility" to refer to programs like mount, although again, just call it a program and be done with it. (this is just a general remark, not a reply)
jere 14y ago
Here's one of those retarded people: http://youtu.be/RhD5lIHxCN0?t=1m29s http://youtu.be/RhD5lIHxCN0?t=1m29s
amalcon 14y ago
The term "app" was in use before smartphones even existed, so no.
swang 14y ago
Could we (as in, everyone) please stop referring to something we find stupid or dumb in general as "retarded"? It's offensive. Sorry, this just bugged me.
- baddox 14y ago
  If your best argument for why someone should stop doing something is that "it's offensive," I will have trouble taking your side.
  - kevinpet 14y ago
    "it's retarded" appears to take on the place in a paragraph where an actual argument or reason would go, but it isn't. It's just a childish phrase used to indicate dislike for something. If you don't like the "it's offensive to use a phrase indicating some form of developmental disorder as a pejorative", then please consider the argument that it accomplishes and communicates nothing except the fact that the speaker / writer lacks the ability or motivation to articulate his objections.
  - natrius 14y ago
    When given a choice between two otherwise equivalent options, most non-sociopaths will choose the option that is less likely to offend their audience.
    - rimantas 14y ago
      Fuck the audience. If they are so easily offended they should get therapy instead of calling others sociopaths. Offence is taken, not given.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        However, if you're attempting to get a point across, you generally do better by keeping social norms in mind. Offending your audience instantly makes them think about whatever "horrible" thing you just said and not on whatever point you're trying to communicate. Put another way, if nobody is getting your point, perhaps the problem isn't with the audience :) (I am, however, going to steal that "offense is taken, not given" line for future (ab)use)
gruseom 14y ago
"App" doesn't imply smartphones. It has been used this way since at least the 80s: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22killer+app%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1990&num=10 https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22kil...
Karunamon 14y ago
>An "app" is a specific kind of program for a smartphone. No, "app" is short for "application". The term "killer app" has been around long before there was such a thing as a smartphone. Stop being bothered by such trivial matters, moreso when you don't know what you're talking about.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>Since free software is so pervasive these days, it might not be very hard to find something within a company's product portfolio that depends greatly on free or open source software. Once discovered, all it takes is a claim of license violation like this one to shut down that software That paragraph actually makes it sound scary to even use open source software when they actually mean only GPL'ed software and that too only when modified and distributed/sold.

cjbprime 14y ago
> That paragraph actually makes it sound scary to even use open source software when they actually mean only GPL'ed software and that too only when modified and distributed/sold. No, you have to comply with the GPL regardless of whether you've modified the source that you're distributing. (As in this case: I'd be surprised if Twin Peaks modified mount -- I don't see why they'd need to.)
- jlarocco 14y ago
  You completely missed the point. There's a lot of open source code that isn't GPL. Many licenses don't require the code to be distributed, even if it's changed. The sentence from the article makes it sound like all open source code is GPL.
  - bo1024 14y ago
    Yes, but the poster 'recoiledsnake' made a separate mistake, stating that modification to GPL code is required for it to be vulnerable to lawsuits. As cjbprime stated, that isn't true; using the code is enough for it to be covered.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      Distribution not use is required for the GPL to restrict you. But you are right that modification is irrelevant.

eurleif 14y ago

>Since both of Twin Peaks' products are released under a proprietary license, there was no source code of any changes it made to mount released, which is a violation of the GPLv2. Seems like Twin Peaks could resolve this by just releasing the source code to their version of mount. Maybe Red Hat will be able to get damages out of it, but if Twin Peaks releases the code in a timely fashion, I doubt Red Hat will be able to get an injunction against their product sales. (IANAL.) Meanwhile, the patent suit goes on.

graue 14y ago
The GPL has a clause saying that if its terms are violated, all rights granted to the violator by the GPL are terminated. So if Twin Peaks did indeed copy Red Hat's mount code as alleged, they would never be allowed to distribute that code again (without specific permission).
- xtdx 14y ago
  Term 5? All that says is if you don't accept the terms, you don't get to use the software. There's no irrevocable termination of rights. At worst, all they have to do is download a new copy of mount and presto, they have a new license. [err, that's for gpl2. gpl3 has a more complicated termination procedure.] ok, so in light of gpl3, they just need to go back and get a gpl2 copy of mount. It's not like mount has changed all that much, I'm sure the 2007 version will suffice. Or they could just write their own. How many lines of code are we talking about here?
  - graue 14y ago
    Term 4 in GPLv2. "Any attempt otherwise to copy ... will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
    - xtdx 14y ago
      Read right over that. But I suspect they can still just download another copy, as the second download would be a new offer, and they can then agree and comply with that one.

lbarrow 14y ago

I think the blog title is a bit sensational here. 'Patent trolls', at least as I understand the term, do not produce products. That's the whole point: they're trolls because they do nothing but sue people, without adding any value themselves. Twin Peaks does produce products, so they aren't a troll. Red Hat has just found an interesting way to counter-sue in a fairly ordinary patent dispute. The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.

SCdF 14y ago
That and it's a one-time counter claim for this specific situation. From the title I presumed that they had somehow made a 'generic' weapon that could be used to shut down any patient troll.
- pilif 14y ago
  Suing a patent troll for GPL violations is impossible by definition. A patent troll is a non-practicing entity, so they don't produce anything (but lawsuits) and thus they don't distribute software and conversely can't be sued for GPL violations. If whatever company that is suing on patent grounds is also producing software (like this current case), then they are not a patent troll by the most common definition of the term but just plain aholes.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    Nah, a patent troll is anyone who trolls with patents. That doesn't need to be the only thing they do. The classic example, SCO, had actual products which weren't related in any way to their patent suits.
    - trotsky 14y ago
      No, a patent troll is a non-practicing entity (NPE). The specific reason they're dangerous is because they aren't subject to counter claims. You can't come along and redefine a word simply because you don't understand it.

baddox 14y ago

"Intellectual property" as a socially and legally recognized concept is nonsensical and harmful, even in instances like the GPL where it's intended to increase freedom.

rayiner 14y ago
[citation needed]
cwp 14y ago
I've started using the older term "monopoly" instead of "property". Respect for property rights is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it's really hard to argue against it without sounding like some crazed hippie. Arguing against monopolies is much more respectable.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
zdw 14y ago
Usually this argument is summed up more succinctly by adding two words to the phrase: "is neither"
astrodust 14y ago
If we could live off of a handful of ideas and had no want of food, shelter, or clothing, I'd be in complete agreement.
- baddox 14y ago
  We (the human race) would be worse off if we only had a handful of words or numbers, yet I believe that respecting words and numbers as property is nonsensical and harmful.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Your fallacious argument intrigues me. Fallacious because we can still live quite well without there being intellectual property. Could you expand upon your theme? Perhaps I'm not following.

monochromatic 14y ago

That's great, except it would be totally ineffectual against a real troll. If you're not making anything, you're likely not violating the GPL.

zurn 14y ago
You could use it against the patent troll's masters (eg. Mosaid)

huhtenberg 14y ago

This is not going to be effective unless Red Hat really pushes for damages. Shutting down Twin Peaks products is not a big deal, they will just release the source of their mount.mfs and/or rewrite the mount, and then push out a new version that doesn't violate mount's license.

warp 14y ago
Except that GPLv2 doesn't work like that. Once the license is violated you permanently lose the rights granted by the license. So even if Twin Peaks fixes their stuff and comes back into compliance, they do not get their rights back automatically -- the copyright holders have to explicitly give them back these rights. This is one of the important differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
- morsch 14y ago
  Wait, so when you're dealing with GPLv3 stuff, you do get the license for redistribution back automatically?
  - warp 14y ago
    Yes. See [1] and [2]. [1] http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section8 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section8
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  Where's this stated exactly in the license?