decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but... | 215 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
precision versus accuracy
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:02 PM EDT
>>...it's good to be precise and careful.

A nitpick, but, accuracy in news is far more important than precision.
Precision is a measure of consistency and repeatibility, rather than being on
target. A pitcher that throws balls consistently within a 6" diameter
circle but 4 yards to the right of the plate is very precise but not accurate.
When it comes to reporting tech stories, we can use Herr Müller as a great
example of high precision and low accuracy ;)

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:03 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:04 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:05 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software Freedom Law Center Says Google's Draft VP8 Cross License is Compatible With FOSS Licensing ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 10:46 PM EDT
Nice one Google.

They certainly gained respect in my estimation...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software Freedom Law Center Says Google's Draft VP8 Cross License is Compatible With FOSS Licensing ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 08:32 AM EDT
It has been suggested that the proposed license is incompatible with Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition and the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition, the documents that define which terms are appropriate in free and open source copyright licenses.
The Free Software Definition does not limit itself to copyright licensing issues. It recognizes that other criteria exist which can impact whether a program should be recognized as free software. Licenses based upon contracts and on trademarks are explicitly called out on the FSF's What is Free Software webpage as means of potentially restricting software freedom. Patent licensing, while not addressed directly on that page, can likewise be a factor.

The Open Source Definition directly speaks only of licensing, but does not actually qualify that "the license" should only be for copyrights. Based upon Simon Phipps' commentary (he is President of the Open Source Initiative), it would seem patent licensing should also be considered as criteria for satisfying the OSD.

Given that, the question that should be raised is not whether the VP8 Cross License is "compatible" with copyright licenses that satisfy the FSD or OSD, but whether the Cross License itself satisfies those Definitions. More importantly, if it does not satisfy the criteria for being Free and Open Source, examination of its deficiencies can provide insight into the current state of things and how we should move forward.

The Software Freedom Law Center's goal of protecting Free Software projects and developers from patent lawsuits is commendable, however, it is also important to recognize when freedoms are being sacrificed in order to gain that security. Webm may be an improvement over MPEG formats in this regard; nonetheless, that does not mean it is the best that can be accomplished.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF reaction?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Has the FSF made any comment on this statement? I've looked around the web and
don't see anything. If there were a reaction I would think it would show up
pretty quickly.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compromise?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 11:52 AM EDT
I've only given it a short think, but I thunk I get what the compromise is with
regards to free and open. Mind you, I have run 'free-standing third-party'
through the noddle quite a few times and the significance still eludes me.

The free and open thing is that you should be able to use the code in any way
you like for other things. The compromise is that the licence only allows you to
use the majik patent beans to grow a VP8.

If you wanted to grow another codec entirely (Actually, I think it is just dec)
then you would infringe MPEG LA's fabulous inventions.

Since the target for Google is a free and open VP8 which is still compatible
with FOSS then the loss of the freedom to use the parts for some other software
is fair exchange for the freedom of VP8.

Of course, Google are about to produce VP9... Oh well.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Herr Meuller
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
I normally wouldn't comment about FOSS Patents since I know it is pure
propaganda for Mr. Meuller's monetary masters but his latest leap of
"logic" still leaves me flabbergasted:

He considers the Software Freedom Law Center comments regarding Google's Draft
VP8 cross license being compatible with FOSS licensing "a ringing
endorsement of Microsoft's patent license agreements with Android and Linux
device makers".

Apparently there's no difference between a 100% free license that can be granted
retroactively and a forced license that drains millions of dollars from
Microsoft competitors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Herr Meuller - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but...
Authored by: luvr on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT
“Without this license, the patent holders would be in a position to threaten those users and developers as well as others.”
Surely, this license won't stop the patent holders to threaten whoever they want, whenever they want? Their chances of successfully threatening anyone will surely have diminished considerably, but I don't really believe it will keep them from trying!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )