|
IBM Donates Cloudscape to Apache Foundation & MS's Patent Purpose |
|
Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT
|
Reuters (and everybody else) has the news that IBM is donating Cloudscape, a database program written in Java, to the Apache Foundation: "International Business Machines says it is offering one of its database program codes to the open source community. IBM said that current programming code of Cloudscape, a database product written in Java programming language, will be given to nonprofit Apache Software Foundation that spearheads open source projects. IBM estimated the value of its contribution to be about $85 million (45 million pounds). The open source project will be called Derby.
"Software written in Java can run on computers with Microsoft Windows as well as other operating systems. 'Our whole motivation is to accelerate more innovation,' around Java, said Janet Perna, general manager of IBM's data management business. She said IBM uses Cloudscape in more than 70 of its products. 'If we found this useful,' others would also find it useful, she said."
I am not positive about the *whole* motivation part, but any way you look at it, it's a lovely gift. Cloudscape has more than a half a million lines of code.
Here is IBM's description of Cloudscape: "IBM Cloudscape provides developers a small footprint, standards- based Java database that can be tightly embedded into any Java based solution.
"Embeds directly in your Java application providing a silent install, zero admin database so you don't need to deploy a DBA along with your application.
"Supports complex SQL, transactions and JDBC so that your applications can be migrated to DB2 UDB when they need to grow.
"Supports data encryption on disk via JCE for secure operation in hostile environments." The NYTimes mentions [sub reqd] that they are donating it to the "public domain" but then says that Apache "will hold the licensing and intellectual property rights to the Cloudscape code." It can't be both, because they are mutually exclusive. If it's public domain, there are no IP rights and no licensing. The Apache Foundation uses various licenses, depending on what it is they are licensing, which you can read about on their Licenses page. But here is the Apache License, Version 2.0, the likely choice, which they say may or may not be compatible with the GPL. They're in discussions with FSF, or have been. The full explanation of the issues can be found here. It's OSI-approved, for sure, an open source license on the approved list. It includes a grant of patent license clause: "Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
as of the date such litigation is filed."
Here's what the Free Software Foundation says about Apache License Version 2 on their page of various software licenses:
"Apache Software License, version 2.0
"This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"
Maybe the next version of the GPL will include a patent termination clause, if they decide it would be a good idea. Personally, I like the idea fine. But I'm not a lawyer, and there are issues to consider, as you saw on the Apache page explaining their view of the matter. As they point out, their goals are not identical with the FSF. But the point is this: by picking a license with a no-patent infringement clause, IBM is telling us something. They get it. Here's a contrast for you.
Microsoft's Patent Purpose
We don't have to wonder about the patents Microsoft is accumulating, as to what they are for. Newsweek's Brad Stone has done a timely interview with the man behind the new Microsoft patent strategy, Marshall Phelps. He is the ex-IBM lawyer who got IBM to patent everything it could in the early 90s and got hired by Microsoft to do the same for them in the last year. After all, Microsoft is a monopoly in a tech world where everyone needs to interoperate, so why not patent everything they control and then sit back in their castle, light a cigar, and make the serfs of the world pay to pass on the road?
Set up toll booths everywhere on the monopoly and rake in the dough. It beats working. But here's the fun, new twist: they will refuse to let GPL users pass. Thus the GPL ends up in its own restricted ghetto, with a wall around it. It can't go anywhere outside the ghetto. While the GPL slowly starves to death, make money from everybody else, capitalizing on two facts: Microsoft is ubiquitous; and in a tech world, everybody needs to be able to interoperate:
"In the last year, both Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard have started licensing programs. In the process, they have struck fear in the hearts of some who consider such programs akin to blackmail: pay us for the right to interact with our technology, or else you’ll hear from our lawyers. . . .
"By the late ’90s, businesses like wireless firm Qualcomm and memory-chip company Rambus were doing almost nothing but this: inventing and patenting a cornerstone technology such as the popular mobile-phone protocol CDMA, offering a license to it, then enforcing the license with implicit (or explicit) threats. Last year even Hewlett-Packard—once known for the gentle 'HP Way'—jumped into the fray, consolidating all its intellectual property from its own R&D labs and from its purchase of PC maker Compaq, and offering licenses. 'We’re not here to shut people down,' says Joe Beyers, HP’s vice president of IP licensing, 'but we’ll do it if we have to.' Surprise: it has to. HP says it owns some of the key innovations in, among other things, lightweight laptops, and has sued archenemy Gateway, which won’t pay the license fee.
"The patent portfolios of Microsoft and HP are so substantial that it becomes impossible to take a drive without passing through their toll booths. The overtaxed U.S. Patent and Trademark Office often grants absurdly broad patents that reflect little actual innovation. . . .
"Marshall Phelps tries to dispel the notion that Microsoft is preparing a patent assault on open-source software. He notes that at IBM he never initiated a single lawsuit and says, 'I’m not running a litigation shop, I’m running a licensing shop.' He adds he took the job only when Gates promised him he wanted to change the way Microsoft 'interfaced' with the technology world and argues that licensing 'is inherently pro-competitive.' But when asked if Microsoft would license its technology to rivals in the open-source community, Phelps says that 'somebody who is taking software pursuant to the GPL cannot take a license … Section 7 [of the GPL] is its own world.' . . .
"Such discord is often the precursor to future legal imbroglios. As history amply shows, when it comes to wielding something as valuable and dangerous as patents, it’s hard to play nice." Especially if you aren't really trying. Actually, as usual, MS's lawyer doesn't grok the GPL. That's their Achilles' heel. But that is the plan. It's the ultimate solution, then. As usual with ghettos, its residents are to blame for their problems. They would insist on using that loathsome GPL. The proud, smartypants lawyer boasting about the monopoly's scheme must have forgotten that his company is currently being scrutinized by the EU Commission for antitrust activities. And he just told the world all about Microsoft's anti-competitive plan. Yoohoo, Europe. Could you make a note and think about this revelation about how Microsoft intends to use their patents before you decide to set up a US-style monopoly-enabling system over there? And Mr. Monti. I hope you are reading Newsweek, because Microsoft's lawyer just told the world they plan to game the patent system to use their monopoly position to destroy their main competition. Woops.
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
OT Links here please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reality hits SCO - Authored by: clark_kent on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- Suggestion for Non Geek Newbies wrt Links and HTML Editing - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Unisys and SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Enderle sighting - Authored by: OscarGunther on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- I hope Europe keeps saying NO to Software Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- OT Links etc here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Software Patents and DMCA Exported by Treaty to Australia!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT
- Darl forgot about Linspire - Authored by: clark_kent on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- US Army wants Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Microsoft MIA / LinuxWorld (the Washington Post report) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- Linux, digital rights on collision course? - Authored by: rharvey46 on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- Nuke this post - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- Enderle now robot analyst?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 03:13 AM EDT
- Munich freezes Linux migration due to software patents - Authored by: thaldyron on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 03:22 AM EDT
- OT - Linux World in S.F. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 04:02 AM EDT
- news.comcomcom: Sun's Solaris 10 to run Linux apps, too - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- New FOSS World bench mark record ... - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- OSRM patent FUD results in freeze of Munich's Linux conversion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
To help PJ find 'em. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
Or would that be Tollish Types? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
The music industry has mandatory licensing of music. Granted, it's not free,
but it works.
Some mandatory-licensing schemes I've heard bandied about limit the dollar
amount or percentage of a product's final price that will go to third-party
patent licenses. I've heard numbers like "5% of the sales price" and
such. Given the free software industry, any politically-viable approach would
have a dollar fee for low-cost software, e.g. "$1/user or 5% of gross
receipts, whichever is greater" to be distributed among patent-holders of
your software.
While such a mandatory licensing of patents won't help the free-software
industry at all, it will help smaller companies by putting a ceiling on their
patent liabilities - they can raise their price by $1 or just over 5% and not
have to worry about expensive litigation, no matter how many patents they are
using, and no matter if they even know if they are using them (the
submarine-patent threat).
Of course, the devil is in the details - what constitutes a third-party patent
(if MS invents something, then "sells" the patent to "Gates IP
Inc.," does it become a third-party patent, so less of MS's 5% patent fee
actually leaves MS?)? For items subject to a $1 floor, what constitutes
"product?" If 20 components in Fedora Core 1 each violate a patent,
does that mean users will owe $20 in patent royalties, or just $1?
Anyhow, what do you guys think about the general idea of mandatory-licensing
with imposed cost ceilings in general terms?
-davidwr_, davidwr-at-yahoo.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
Cloudscape was written many years ago by a some company, and used to be packaged
with JDK, afaik. It's pure Java, OO database.
After several steps it ended up in IBM. IBM uses it as "embedded" DB,
particularly, in their replication scheme with Everyplace. Cloudscape is on
mobile device, then it synchs with server-side RDBMS, such as DB2 or Oracle.
Idea's cool.
Apache's license is considered by many folks "more business friendly".
I agree. I'd prefer using Apache's product rather than GPL'd ones. Also, my
clients do not like to get GPL products, but they are fine with Apache. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
I originally posted this under the Sun-Novell thread but it seems to bear
repeating, with a few minor edits. Repeating the patents bit alone would lack
context. Apologies if you disagree.
MS is already under pressure in Europe to improve access to its networking
infrastructure (and to a point I think that this is also a 'shot across the
bows' from the EU so MS needs to be careful about upsetting anyone even more).
This may take a long time to actually resolve but trying to lock people in even
tighter will do them no favours fighting that case. If they win this time round
such a lock in pretty much guarentees they won't next time round and it won't
just be about the network access next time round too.
Public bodies are already becoming very big customers and so is the whole
govenment machinery of some countries that won't give a damn about MS if it gets
in the way of their making use of IT, especially when they see it as central to
their economic development as a nation. They are going to get very annoyed
indeed if MS plays this game and starts locking out important relationships. MS
may have a lot of influence politically but it can't win against the likes of
the DOD or the whole government of other countries.
Not unrelated is the issue of software patents in that if a business starts a
slugging match with a government guess who always wins? Certainly ain't the
business. If MS and others play the software patent game to hard, push it to
far, trying to protect an untenable position in a world that has moved on they
risk governments pulling the plug big time (and governments have a bit of a
nasty habit of overreacting ). Right now they have a problem, but it is a
curable one if they accept the world is changing and move on with it. Wait for
the software patents issue, for example, to go mad pretty much guarentees they
die. Problem is with the patents issue they'll kill a lot of innovation and
smaller companies first in the battle which is what really sticks in my throat.
Businesses that offend many customers either learn to change their ways or they
go out of business sooner or later. I have to say I think MS have lost the plot,
and it would seem so have Sun and others, and are beginning to feel a backlash.
So far they aren't learning though, they are just reacting defensively. Not a
bright idea in any walk of life.
Richard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
Crush innovation.
Extort money.
Continue destroying the US and World
economies.
[sigh]
For those interested in MS Finances - you might
want to read Bill Parish' latest article
MS
has too much money and power with an inversely proportional amount of
morals.
$INCLUDE BP IANAL
$INCLUDE BP
IANAPL
$INCLUDE BP IANPJ
$INCLUDE BP YMMV
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Re: Mr Monti
It's a shame, but Italian governement decided that from next year Mr. Monti will
not be in the EU Commission anymore.
I remind you that EU commissioners are chosen by the national governements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/business/worldbusiness/27euro.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
Any patent wall around GPL software is also a wall around proprietary software.
There is too much GPL software in use to isolate it behind a patent wall. Such
a patent wall is more likely to hasten patent reform and the isolation of
Microsoft software than the death of GPL software. If Microsoft isolates their
software behind the patent wall, they will find it shrinking in on them, not the
other way around. Companies that have to choose between $0 free source software
and software encumbered by Microsoft's tradition of treachery will not always
choose the Microsoft license trap.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
Some of you seem to have a problem diferentiating between the US (0.2Bln
inhabitants) and the world as a whole (6 Bln inhabitants).
US patent law
does not aply to the majority of us.
I have said it before and I will
continue repeating it until it sinks in: MS is a treat to the US software
industry and its users, not to open source.
So what if MS enforces its
patent portfolio over there? The open source movement resides mostly outside the
US, as do most of its users.
MS will bully its way to some success in the
states, which will be a good eye-opener for the rest of us (so that we dont
introduce such ridiculous legislation).
USA may be stuck with using
proprietary software; your missfortune. For the rest of us it looks like a
competitive advantage.
Why isn't anyone trying to point out the hardship it
will cause american companies?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- On MS patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Small corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- On MS patents - Authored by: fb on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- On MS patents - Authored by: tizan on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- On MS patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- World wide influence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- One word - TREATY - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BigFire on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
I'm sure that IBM have their internal and outside tax attorney looked through
the tax benefit before comitting this act of generosity. (They wouldn't be
doing their job if they weren't).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
NPR ran a story on the IBM donation this morning and guess who was on the air,
our dear friend Laura DiDio of the Yankee Group.
One has to wonder if NPR called her or, as my fevered imagination projects, was
she sitting in her dark office, rapidly calling every news service offering them
her expert opinion on IBM motivations. Her refrain this time, they are only
doing it for the money. Duh. Unlike the alturistic motives of Microsoft and its
funded lapdog, the Yankee Group, who are all that stand between the poor,
innocent and ignorant computer users and the hoards of howling Open Source
barbarians bent upon the destruction of all that is descent, good and American!
Saddly, Ms DiDio's comments were the only ones on the NPR story, no one from
IBM, OpenSource or anywhere else. I hope for better from NPR, but they are as
vulnerable to FUD as the rest of the media.
john anonymous, Houston TX[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shareme on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
I do not know much about IBM's motivation as you know DB2 was not
opensourced....
However if you look at Sun's J2EE implemntation ..ie the jsdkee kit devlopers
use..it is including cloudscape to use..
So maybe IBM's motivationis to make sure more compoenents of the jsdkee from SUn
are opensource in nature..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
How is it that IBM can donate a Java program to somebody? When I first read that
headline, I immediately thought that it was some sort of retalitory move against
Sun's announcement yesterday of possibly buying Novell. (Impressively quick if
it was) I thought that Java was Sun's baby, and this move was some kind of poke
at them. Am I reading too much into this? --- Change is merely the
opportunity for improvement.....
but I can't think of a better signature yet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
All I want is a computer that will process e-mail, surf the web.
All I want is a computer that will help me with my finances.
Should I dump the box I have now at the foot of the gates of Gates because the
next generation of Windows wouldn't run on the current state of the art box?
I saw this coming back in 1985, every two years you have to dump loads of money
to keep up with the next generation of software/hardware. Maybe everyone else
has that kind of money and patience, but I'm getting tried of having to upgrade
because a single company says I have to, get a clue![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
”…I’m not running a litigation shop, I’m running a licensing shop [says
Marshal Phelps]….”
While that maybe true for you, Mr Phelps, but you
have no control over the legal department or Mr. Bill. And if they decide to
exercise their patent portfolio, I’m sure you’re objections will fall on deaf
ears.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Can't it be argued that software patents are unconstitutional because in
practice they prevent competition,innovation and progress? It's time for the
Supreme Court to re-examine the software patent issue now that it is clear how
they are used and the effect they have.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: KBellve on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
The solution is to publish your source code as soon as possible (hopefully under
GPL). You can't patent something that has already been disclosed.
It will be the world's open source programmers against microsoft programmers.
That can't compete. You already have organizations that fight to break patents
based upon prior art.
GPL kills software patents...you just need to publish before the other guy can
patent.
It is a war that Microsoft can't win in the long term.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
I see that Cloudscape runs on "any _certified_ JRE". As far as I know
that excludes all Free JREs. Does Cloudscape run on any Free JRE?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jim Reiter on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
When you talk about patents and copyrights, how can you not
mention IBM, Oracle, Novell and Apple. Microsoft has
actually developed very little on its own.
Jim Reiter [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John M. Horn on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
What I mean is, we have an IBM mainframe running multiple instances of LINUX,
our internal and external web servers run on IBM RISC hardware (formerly Sun
RISC hardware), we are purchasing an ever increasing number of products and
services from IBM...
Would we be doing this if IBM weren't embarked on their course across the
uncharted sea of open source profitability? I don't know the answer to this,
although I'm certain that we would feel differently about IBM's products and
services if they hadn't become this champion of FOSS. I'm sure we would still be
doing some business with IBM, but likely only a fraction of the business we do
with IBM today.
I think IBM has cleverly launched into orbit a mapping satellite right under the
noses of their traditional competitors - a satellite that is allowing them to
steer a course towards that holy grail of ports-o-call for businesses engaged in
FOSS development and distribution, profitability.
Yes, it is a different paradigm, but IBM is, in many respects, charting the path
to profitability in the Open Source world of tomorrow. If a big lumbering giant
of a company like IBM can do it, surely a horde of smaller, more agile companies
can find a way to trail along in IBM's wake.
It is only those companies like SCO that refuse to do what it takes to be a
profitable company in the world of twenty first century software that need fall
by the wayside, dragging down their investors and employees alike into the
quagmire of destitution and bankruptcy.
MS, are you listening...?
John Horn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
This is truly scary stuff, as I have said before.
Law has no ethics on whether a 'law' is right or wrong, so
M$ here can and will destroy OSS/FSF/GPL using it - there
is no one that can stop them.
Tie in with the fact $$$/£££ buys politicians and
Governments, then there is no hope.
Free code will always be around, but it will be pushed
underground (and I can foresee a 'underground' free
Internet starting as well).
Back to past of book burning again...
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
is money not spent on products to please their customers. Are MS products
faster, more reliable, more capable, more lexible, cheaper, simpler, and easier
to use as a result?
Maybe we should welcome MS's diversion of its resources. The less they spend on
their products and customer satisfaction the greater opportunity for others to
prosper at their expense.
Welcome Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
When IBM finally gets a decisive ruling, such as the PSJ pending on September
15, they will consider joining others who sponsored, financed, conspired or
otherwise supported SCO w/o due diligence. Discovery is likely to lead them to
several places where there are "deep pockets" with billion$ of dollar$
and patent$. ...slurp... The people at these places will not be able to to
defend themselves.* Their pants with these "deep pockets" ...slurp...
will be down. These people will not want a jury to look at the lack of
evidence, to look into their "deep pockets" ...slurp..., and to look
at their motives for this groundless "monetising campaign." They will
bargain with IBM. They will ask IBM to allow them to keep a few more billion in
their "deep pockets," ...slurp...in exchange for their permanent
forbearance from weilding their patent arsenal against any open source software.
Those that don't want to be owned by IBM will probably go for an arrangement
like this. You know when lawyers are working, there are always "deep
pockets" ...slurp... around.
*They all knew or should have known there was no code. They relied on
confidentiality and one-sided representations in the face of authoritative
denials. They did not rely on a any authoritative and neutral expertise. They
did not perform "due diligence." Or they knew the whole thing was
bogus.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
I suspect there is a simpler reason IBM chose the Apache license.
A lot of the software they expect to be used with cloudscape is Apache licensed
and as the Apache license is incompatible with the GPL it would be unusable in a
lot of the areas they hope it will be adopted if it was GPL licensed.
I suspect this situation has arisen for 2 reasons
i) The FSFs definition of what constitutes derivation makes the LGPL almost
useless with Java, I suspect the law may disagree on this definition but most
users don't want to have to settle the issue in court.
ii) While the FSF have produced and supported a lot of C and C++ software a lot
of open source Java software originates from Apache originated projects (tools
like ant and a lot of useful libraries).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
The quote "somebody who is taking software pursuant to the GPL cannot take
a license" isn't purely MS being spiteful.
The GPL is very specific about patent licensing (IIRC that was one of the
changes in v2). Whilst GPLed software can require a patent license and IBM
reportedly have licensed the RCU patents for use in Linux the license must not
impose any additional terms over the GPL. Basically the licensor has to license
the patent for use in any GPLed software so if MS are planning to charge for
their patent licenses that is OK in a BSD license world - anyone can have the
source code but to use it you need to pay MS a license fee but not under the
GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tintak on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Article from The Inquirer
link
--- Darl'
s folly.
"Somebody said it couldn't be done, and he knew it. So he tackled this thing
that couldn't be done,... and he found that he couldn't do it!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
<i>After all, Microsoft is a monopoly in a tech world where everyone needs
to interoperate, so why not patent everything they control and then sit back in
their castle, light a cigar, and make the serfs of the world pay to pass on the
road?</i>
Does anyone remember when Microsoft was trying very hard to get into the
financial market with their products, code, servers, etc.? I believe it was
around the 92 to 94 time frame, give or take a year.
I don't remember who, possibly Mr. Bill himself, but someone from MS was quoted
saying something like they wanted embed Microsoft technology into the financial
infrastructure so that MS could collect a fraction of a penny from every
transaction.
MS's entire strategy, for many, many years, has been to use its desktop position
to build itself as the tollbooth in as many places as possible. They've always
been successful at it, to one degree or another, even if not always in the
manner they set out from at the beginning.
They tried it with the Internet, except things like Linux, Apache kept them from
being entirely succesful. To that end, it seems the patent based method of
stopping innovation without a Microsoft tax will probably provide that tollbooth
on the Internet that they've so desparately been trying to get.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
From an
interview in ComputerWorld with McBride:
"In
June, SCO reported that its Unix SCOsource licensing revenue in the second
quarter had dropped 99% to $11,000, from $8.25 million in the previous
quarter [see story]. What's your reaction to such a drop?"
"In the
day-to-day business, we have some speed bumps that come up from our
[intellectual property] issues. In the previous quarter, we had several large
licensing deals, but you can't repeat those every quarter. It's not really as
brutal as people might expect."
Not as brutal? Who
said anything about brutal? I'd say that was a Freudian slip on McBride's
part... :-)
Speed bumps. Uh-huh. Just keep telling yourself
that...
--- Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
i don't know how ibm's motives can be mistaken. to me it seems plain clear.
in contrast to ms, they are essentially a hardware company. they see, that
there is a growing market for free software, so they 1) produce the hardware to
run it on and 2) give some pieces of code to the developers so that the market
continues to grow.
i think (maybe i am oversimplifying or just ignorant), that ms will face very
tough times since they are a more or less pure software company. there is no
special equipment or investment or huge company needed to produce software. joe
average can do it if he just invests some time. this used to be different, but
today you need $200 or so and an internet connection to start software
development.
until now, ms has used the almost no investment nature to their benefit. who
else has 90%+ sales margins on their product? but this is now starting to be
their archilles heel. they are huge. they have a lot of obligations to a lot of
people. sure, they also have a lot of money - for the moment. but just imagine
how much capital influx it takes tu just keep the juggernaut alive. and all they
have to sell are some lines of code that interface the keyboard, screen and
printer - just a bit different than the previous version they sold a year ago.
looks pretty bleak to me.
on the other hand, a hardware seller like IBM can rejoice. finally the burden
of huge software investments seems to get lighter and the percentage of the
customers money spent on hardware can increases again.
ibm has realized it best. others do so, too. all major hardware companies are
more or less on the free software train. of course.
only the likes of ms or sco, software companies, that don't actually have any
specific expertise to sell are afraid. and some companies, like sun, seem to
have identity crises. not about if they support free software - that is a
byproduct at best - but if they are a hardware or a software company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
Your reference to kingdoms, castles, and not MS not letting anyone pass led me
to picture them as the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
King Arthur (us) comes upon the Black Knight (MS) blocking his way and saying
that "none shall pass". They battle, and Arthur whacks off the
knight's arm. "I've had worse" says the knight, and they continue to
fight. Eventually, after chopping off both the knight's arms and legs
("just a flesh wound"), Arthur continues on his way. The armless and
legless knight though, still challenges Arthur as he walks away - "come
back and fight, you yellow bastard!"
Or maybe MS is the silly French knight who taunts Arthur from the castle. Hard
to say, it's a very profound movie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
210 - Certificate of service by Intl Bus Mach Inc re: Dft's Fifth Set of
Interrogatories (tsh) [Entry date 08/02/04]
If you read the transcript of the last hearing, I'm *guessing* that this *may*
signal the completion of IBM's production (with the exception of the additional
items that SCO feels they should get and are currently in dispute).
If it does, perhaps IBM will mention it in their reply to SCO's renewed motion
to compel discovery.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: k9 on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
- "We're not focused on doing more end-user lawsuits right now," he
told the FT on Tuesday. "We want to have our claims heard before a court. It is
more important to get those claims heard than sue another 10
companies."
-
"It's a little like losing a spring training baseball
game," he said of the DaimlerChrysler setback.
Boxing,
baseball, what next? Clearly he thinks of litigation as akin to a spectator
sport. Perhaps it's knowing that every move is watched by a gazillion eyeballs
on GL ... read the whole FT report
here.
I have the distinct impression the reporter was trying not to
laugh. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alan Bell on Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
ala Eclipse here is the FAQ for the
IPL this license is OSI approved but it
isn't quite GPL compatible because of a patent restriction requirement.
Here
is what GNU.org has to
say about it:
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
This is a free
software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The IBM Public
License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific
requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain
patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those
patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are
incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has
various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it
requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We
don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but
nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 05 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
What is so bad about patent clauses, that gets the FSF to not approve any of
these licenses? Personally I and many other open source developers I work with
don't like the GPL, here on one end we are pissed off at SCO for declaring IBM's
work as derivative, but the GPL says in plain English anything that links to it
is derivative work. I and many other open source developers don't share the
extreme ideal world of RMS, commodity products should be open source, but if you
are in a vertical market and you can make money selling proprietary code on our
platform, then more power to you. The only license I support is the LGPL but
that too I dislike because as far as I'm concerned it has no teeth regarding
patent's, what's to stop someone from taking a LGPL product, patenting some new
approach that only came into existence because of the original work and stopping
others? You are only a blind fool if you think a patent attack is not coming. I
wish there was an open source license that had a very strong patent clause, yet
has the best part of the FSF license, where all contributions must be donated
back. Also what's with some of the other projects going with GPL "With no
linking clause", why not go with LGPL in the first place?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|