A Big Test for Linux.

CNN ^ | Jan 27, 2003 | Eric Hellweg

[for-q-clinton]

Will the licensing efforts of a key patent holder derail Linux's corporate growth?

Every so often in the tech world, an intellectual-property lawsuit comes along that gets the coders clucking, predicting that it's the end of the digital world as we know it. A year ago, it was British Telecom's attempt to collect royalties on hyperlinks. And Amazon now and then comes under fire for some of its business-process patents.

[for-q-clinton]

This may get very interesting. If it works, I think there may be a new way to make money in Linux.

1) Create code
2) Patent code
3) Get someone to release it to the Linux community
4) Sue any distro that uses it
5) Since we know they don't have any money, sue the companies that are using it.

[for-q-clinton]

Thought you might enjoy this.

[dep]

there is, actually, less here than meets the eye. i interviewed the sco boyos about this week before last and did up this.

dep

[for-q-clinton]

Maybe you can help me understand this whole public licensing thing.

As I understand it there are 2 types of public/free licensing. One is that you can charge for it, but the bits that you wrote are public domain. The other type (which linux uses) is that it's all free you can't charge for the bits no matter what. You can charge for the CD and making it, but you also must make a free copy available.

But there's a kicker in the Linux license. Basically, any code you add to it is automagically covered by this license. So if I want to reclaim my code, I can't because it's now public domain.

Now that leads to this question...how does someone like SUSE "charge" for a version that has some licensed code in its build? I thought it was public domain if it's in Linux. Same thing applies to Sun's StarOffice. They use free code add some private bits and now they charge for it.

Assuming what they did is legal, does that mean Microsoft can build a Linux flavor with a bunch of custom code and sell it? Not saying they would, but who knows what the market will bring to bear in the software industry.

[ThePythonicCow]

There are perhaps a few dozen distinct licenses that apply to bits and pieces of the software in a large distribution like SuSE.

The Linux kernel and many of the classic Unix-like command like utilities from the GNU effort are released under the GPL license, written by Richard Stallman. This license is "viral", in the sense that if you derive other code from the GPL'd code, and publish the combined result, then that other code is also subject to the GPL. The copyright laws are used to do this -- that combined work is a derived work and so subject to the constraints under which you are using the original copyrighted code.

However much of a SuSE distribution is not dervied from GPL'd code, but are separately developed and licensed works, subject to other licenses -- just as other books in a library have their own copyrights and associated constraints.

As far as GPL licensed code goes, you can charge what the market will bear for the compiled executables - the stuff that people actually run. The constraint is that you have to provide the source code for any changes you make, for reasonable distribution fees.

[dep]

oh, man. you've raised one of the great questions of all time.

linux stuff isn't public domain -- it's licensed under the gnu/gpl. you can charge all you want for anything that you do under that license -- but you must make the source code available and you must allow the source code recipients to modify it if they want -- and they're bound by the gpl, too.

you can also bundle your proprietary stuff with linux, so long as the two do not share code. so you can sell, and even copyright in a more conventional way, applications for linux. (there's been some contention as to whether you must statically link your own libraries or you may dynamically link to existing libraries, but the air gets pretty thin about there.)

dep

[ThePythonicCow]

For a bit more on some of the common licenses seen in various Linux/GNU software, see:

1. What are all these licenses?
2. Various Licenses and Comments about Them
3. Free software licenses

[ThePythonicCow]

For a bit more on some of the common licenses seen in various Linux/GNU software, see:

1. What are all these licenses?
2. Various Licenses and Comments about Them
3. Free software licenses

[ThePythonicCow]

oops - please excuse the double post - confused fingers.

[js1138]

I'm not Bush2k, but I used SCO UNIX (Wasn't it Xenix at one time) for a number of years. Seems it might have gone through Microsoft's hands at one time. I never paid much attention to the brand name at the time, but it was the only fully functional distribution for PC hardware that would run the big database engines.

[Karsus]

IBM has a lot riding on Linux.
IBM has more software patents than anyone else on the planet.
IBM will just have its lawyers show up at SCO with a few boxes full of the IBM patents that SCO is infringing on.
SCO drops suit.

[Michael Barnes]

HP is moving up there with some vesting into the Linux world as well..Although, I doubt they beat big blue in the patent department. Now Lucent on the other hand...

[Myrddin]

Microsoft licensed System 7 from Western Electric. From that license, they created Xenix and initially distributed it on the Tandy Model 16. I still have one of those machines running here at my home. Subsequently, the Santo Cruz Operation (SCO) licensed Xenix from Microsoft. They ported the kernel to the 286 initially. It wasn't really that great...no atomic 32-bit operations. When the 386 port came out, they had something useful.

When AT&T split up Bell Labs, the UNIX group broke into an independent operation. It didn't do well financially, and that's when SCO purchased the rights to UNIX. The X86 release of SCO UNIX followed. It was a SysVr4 variant. SCO had some of the best device driver support in the business of X86 UNIX. Lots of 3rd party software too.

SCO's UNIX business fell on hard times and was picked up by Caldera. It appears that the old SCO gang wanted it back. They need to do something more valuable that waste money on Boies. His antics will just cover them with more legal slime and make them a pariah to large commercial operations that might of considered SCO as a platform.

[Myrddin]

I agree with your cynical analysis. The AT&T and Bellcore people have boxes full of trivial patents. If they want to make you miserable, they can trot them out. Some of the simplest, most obvious things that software engineers do everyday are covered by these trivial patents. They are kept in reserve only for the purpose of bludgeoning people stupid enough to attack the company with patent claims.

[justlurking]

Another good compilation of open source license info:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

[shadowman99]

1. Unix is over 30 years old, and pre-dates software patents (which became law in 1986). Even if a software patent were granted on said Unix libraries, such patents expire after 20 years. These guys have 3 years max to shake down companies, and good luck if they try.
2. Linux has some very big friends who can squash SCO like a bug
3. SCO has hired David Boies. That's always the first sign that sombody is evil
4. Depending on how far reaching the IP claims are, Microsoft and Apple may need to step up to the plate or face radical redesign. Normally I would expect Microsoft to buy the company and assume the IP, but they need to downplay the whole monopoly thing.
5. Linux is a kernel. the GNU libraries that are distributed with linux are more likely to be impacted than the kernel.
6. SCO put out a Linux distro, and is going to have some legal issues with the GPL.

[ThePythonicCow]

System 7

More likely Version 7 or System 3?

[Myrddin]

A more concise history can be found at this link.

[ThePythonicCow]

That link calls the parent of Xenix "Seventh Edition", which is what we called "Version 7", at the time. I worked on Unix at Bell Labs then. Definitely not "System 7".

The "System" names were later - System III and System V (esp System V Release 4 -- aka "SVR4) being the most famous.

[Myrddin]

I posted the link because "pale ink is superior to the best memory". I'm sure you know where to find that comment in the source tree :-)