Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:56:33 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future Message-ID: <20101107205633.GF17565@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4CD6DF1F.9040604@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <AANLkTi=EKpVrX2xc7oq%2Bp=RCVtUMUmcVYefj7G20yr-O@mail.gmail.com> <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> <AANLkTin60PyaapfjTQP1G97kOx3b3P-mb6Ffw-A0nL3E@mail.gmail.com> <4CD4DD2C.1090407@too1337.com> <20101106161031.GB12418@guilt.hydra> <4CD6DF1F.9040604@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 05:17:19PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 06/11/2010 16:10, Chad Perrin wrote: > > Will Oracle lawyers > > find some patent related to the creation of that software the company > > "owns" and use that to sue you if you fork the project to ensure the > > survival of your own development projects? It seems somewhat likely, > > somehow. >=20 > Oracle couldn't sue for patent violations on software that they (or > their predecessors) had released and that people were using as-is. > That's legitimate use under license from the software's originators. How long are you planning to use it as-is, without making any changes, if Oracle ceases support for an open source version? >=20 > Nor could they sue successfully over some completely novel > implementation that avoided patented areas. 1. That's kind of irrelevant to my point. 2. That is prone to being a lot of work to end up with something suboptimal -- unless you're talking about using something other than Oracle software, in which case you're just agreeing with me at this point. >=20 > An interesting question is: could they sue over use of patented feature > 'foo' in a forked copy of the software, where the code implementing > 'foo' was still identical to the original version and where any > substantial novel work was on other, unpatented, areas? This flies in > the face of the original intent of granting patents; that innovators > should be able to claim the benefits of their own work in order that > innovation be encouraged. The original intent of granting patents: 1. has not been in evidence in the patent system for a century or so 2. has largely been proven bogus, to anyone willing to consider the evidence >=20 > I doubt that any free software project would have sufficient funds to > pursue such a case through the courts. This is the problem. >=20 > I take comfort from the example of OpenBSD and CARP vs. Cisco and HSRP. > Open source projects have been here before, and survived by doing what > open source projects do best: writing code. Some have. Others have folded under the pressure. That latter case is why people worry about it -- and why they tend to prefer to use stuff that is not in danger of unpleasant lawsuits in the first place. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzXEoEACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUaUACgvuGXUHP2bmCf4LI4VmIYyyJ5 17sAoKV1mqUnJpQtDgPA2ul0fwJF3L+k =CF8N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101107205633.GF17565>