Google Partners With OIN For Linux 67
lymeca writes "Groklaw reports that Google has become the Open Invention Network's first end-user licensee. The OIN was established by companies such as IBM, Red Hat, and somewhat ironically Novell to accumulate patents and license them royalty-free to any company promising not to leverage their own patent portfolio against key applications available on GNU/Linux, including many GNU projects as well as Linux itself. Google's support bolsters the OIN's effectiveness as a shield against patent attacks against GNU/Linux and many popular applications that run on it."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no problem with GNU and Linux shown together in the parent. It will help us understand the different players, and the different philosophies in the F/OSS arena.
Once u
Re: (Score:1)
BTW can Cygwin run on WINE?
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, GNU/Linux is so called because it would be wrong for the FSF to claim ownership over Linux and call the whole thing GNU. They give Linux credit by acknowledging it separately, using a slash (or a + sign in some cases) to indicate that they don't own it. If they were claiming ownership they'd be saying "GNU Linux", not "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux". RMS is very careful to pronounce the sl
Re: (Score:2)
What I am tryi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows itself is not compiled with GCC. However, GNU/OSX seems a fair name.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows itself is not compiled with GCC.
And in the dark depths of a Microsoft coders' dungeo^Wbaseme^Wlounge, there was a soft chuckle of an aged coder. His slavedr^Wsupervisor pulled out his wh^H^Hchair and approached him menacingly.
S: "What is so funny?"
C: "Look at this comment! If only they knew..."
S: "What are you blabbering about, old fool? Has all that caffeine rotted your brain? It's true, Windows itself is not compiled with GCC."
C: "True, it is not. It is compiled with the Visual C compiler. But haven't you ever wondered what was th
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to ruin the gag, but probably the Visual C compiler. [wikipedia.org]
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it is true that GNU is the largest part of a typical distribution, technically the OS [wikipedia.org] is the layer that runs between the hardware and the system software. I quote the Wikipedia article referenced above:
"Operating Systems themselves have no user interfaces; the user of an OS is an application, not a person. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS are some
Re: (Score:2)
There as needs to be a line and calling something gnu means the product itself is gnu is what RMS is trying to say. Linux could exist without gnu just thank you if BSD libc libraries were used as well as numerous free c compilers have been on the net for awhile.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you do in fact run the Linux kernel on your computer, why don't you take your own advice and "Please Stop Using 'GNU/Linux'" ?
I mean, if you want to just call it Linux, why don't you just rip out all of the GNU utilities that make it usable by mere mortals such as us?
Is RMS a bit outlandish? Oh, certainly.
Is Linus also, shall we say...hmm...eccentric? Indubitably.
Of course
Re:Please Stop Using "GNU/Linux" (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyways, there are a lot of folks to thank for the stuff making your computer go. The FSF and the Linux kernel people come to mind. The X.org people, too. The KDE people. I could go on a while.
They should all be given credit where credit was due. But that doesn't mean I should say that my computer runs GNU/Linux/X11/KDE every time I need to name my operating system. It doesn't take credit away from the X.org people to tell someone I run GNU/Linux, and it doesn't take credit away from the FSF people when I say I run Linux.
Would I be critical of someone for using the term GNU/Linux like the flamebait parent? No. It's a fair enough term, and one I sometimes use.
Does it make sense to be critical of people for calling their GNU/Linux/X11 systems Linux? I don't see why. They aren't taking away any credit from anyone, just using what has happened to become common parlance.
Re: (Score:1)
It can't be both. Either it's just the kernel and Linus made it, or it's the OS and Stallman, Linus and a bunch of other people made it. And I'm not saying that you did this in your post. It just ticks me off when I see a journalist do that in print.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that everyone calling there OS "Linux/A Little KDE/Some X/And, of course a lot of GNU!" would be rediculous but if a distro (like Debian) specifically brands there product GNU/Linux then that's what it's called, love it or hate it.
Taking offense at my simple take on this matter seems pretty stupid to me... Conversely I don't worry if someone calls a Debian distro "Linux". I may silently correct them in my hea
Re: (Score:1)
It goes on after this, but for me, the definition is complete in the first sentence. After all, there is also a GNU/Hurd flavor to Debian. But the operating system is referred to well enough by the simple term "Debian".
Re: (Score:2)
Terms like GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd would be especially useful when distinguishing the projects, but using them outside of that distinction is not unfair, and it does align with the way the Debian folks use language.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the whole thing for anyone who doesn't feel like visiting the site [debian.org]:
What is Debian?
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.
Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.
But if you want to refer to Debian GNU/Linux as just Linux, that's OK, I won't hold it against you. Anymore then I would be upset with you telling me you run Hurd, instead of Debain GNU/Hurd.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd:
`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms."
its so magnificently geeky it should be the standard by which all else is measured.
seriously tho, using GNU/Linux is a nod to the massive contri
Re: (Score:1)
Interfaces Representing Depth of Unix-Replacing Daemons
I'm going to need a translator here...
Re: (Score:1)
and GNU is what makes it useful.
But, I gotta agree that it seems unnecessarily confusing using that as the name of the system, especially if you want to promote the use of this great software combination. Because by consequently using the GNU/Linux term, you make people feel stupid and start telling the history of the OS already before they get started, it would be like if you had to say DOS/Windows or NEXT/MacOS each and every time you mention it.
I don't think it looks or sounds r
Re: (Score:1)
So proprietary device drivers are illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
All-out attack on my cynicism? (Score:4, Interesting)
So what's the catch? What am I missing, here, that turns this from an actual Good Thing for the software community (with concomitant benefits to the involved organizations, of course) into an attempt to rape the commons for short-term profit? Or is my cynicism, for possibly the first time ever, completely unwarranted?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm as surprised as you are... Though software patents don't exist in Europe so I suppose it's kinda useless for everyone except Americans?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm as surprised as you are... Though software patents don't exist in Europe so I suppose it's kinda useless for everyone except Americans?
Not really useless; if a European wants to sell software in the US, this would be very valuable.
Re:All-out attack on my cynicism? (Score:5, Interesting)
The first group are companies are the ones that already offer just services, meaning that the software they use is insignificant to their mode of business, so having software that is free to use is important. Also, getting sued is a significant risk for these companies business models. Google would be a great example for this type of company. If google had to pay for every OS, database, and file system on every server they have, I question if their business model would even be possible or viable...
The second group is companies that still work in the business of writing/distrib. software, but are not the top players in the industry. IBM would be a great example of this type of company. These types of companies are realizing, though, that business of "selling" software is slowing going away. The future of software is to sell the services that follow the software. This type of income not only provides a better revenue stream, but also is considerably more profitable..
So who is OIN truely targetting Simple.. To strike after companies that are still are based on just selling software and have the most to loose in the transition to software services... M$ comes to mind..
Re: (Score:2)
So who is OIN truely targetting Simple.. To strike after companies that are still are based on just selling software and have the most to loose in the transition to software services... M$ comes to mind.. :-)
No Twitter, it doesn't ( oh wait, you're not Twitter? You sure as hell sound like him, and that's not a compliment) . The OIN is not about striking ANYONE. It is a defensive organisation, not an offensive one. The OIN is a pool of companies who hold patents to offer to other members provided they adhere to the values of the pool.
To some extent, it's all about Mutually Assured Destruction. They hold so many patents in their pool that should any company sue one of their members, they could almost assur
Re: (Score:2)
Also, in no way would I consider the OIN a offensive organization. Just a strong defensive one. Also, I dont know about your MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) argument, but I admit that I do get your point... I strongly doubt, however, many scenarios where a lawsuit ends with destruction of both companies... Look at the SCO versus IBM for a legal comparison.
Also, I dont fe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All-out attack on my cynicism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoever has the most software patents wins and gets the money or more of it,
So we have a war where companies are trying to patent everything under the sun to protect themselves in case they get sued. Its just defense to prevent them for being sued as they can sue back.
Meanwhile free software developers dont want to pay $5k or whatever it costs to patent a concept or mathmatical algorithm so they are screwed if they are sued. They have no battle chest to defend themselves on.
There is one company that has everyone scared called Intellectual Ventures formed by a former MS scientist who only has laywers on staff. Basically his business model is to sue everyone and since they do not make anything you can not sue back. Kind of scary but good if it will make the industry think twice about protective patents. They have not gone after Linux yet because they have no money but guess who owns stock in the company and who has incredible influence as the CEO was a friend of both Balmer and Gates? You guessed it Microsoft.
I have a feeling they may go after Linux if pressured but we will see.
Re:All-out attack on my cynicism? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is, however, that OIN is a good thing. I think it's important to realize the significance of this: We have huge, powerful companies (IBM, Google, etc.) voluntarily participating in a project that protects FOSS and encourages the free distribution of innovative ideas and Free software. The answer to the obvious "why would these companies do something seemingly benevolent?" is that the FOSS community has done a good job of engineering the landscape that way.
Basically, the years of work by the FOSS community has created an environment where coming together and preventing patent threats against Free software is in the best interests of those big companies! The community (via legal things like the GPL, and less tangible things like "public outcry," boycotts, and "community spirit") have made it clear that business will only continue to benefit from the power and flexibility of FOSS if they play by certain rules. (Keep code open, keep software patents at bay.) The business sector has stepped up to the plate and is enforcing those FOSS requirements... not because they are benevolent, but because they recognize that the payback from the community will be "worth it."
So to those who still (in this day and age!) doubt that FOSS can be relevant to businesses, or that people can "make money from Free software"--let this be an obvious message. The free market has spoken... and it has said "This stuff has value, we want more of it, and we're prepared to do what it takes to protect your continued efforts at innovation."
This crucial win-win between FOSS and business is a result of the FOSS people having uncompromising requirements, and the business people being smart enough to see a great opportunity.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Are you sure it's in the cockles of your heart?
Is it possibly below the cockles? In the sub-cockle area, perhaps?
Maybe the liver or the kidneys?
The colon?
Maybe we'll never know...
C
So what happens when someone buys Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
For that matter, is *Google* actually legally
bound by a promise to not use patents against any
particular person/group/corporation?
I get the feeling the OIN is a feel-good thing,
and actually doesn't have any legal teeth in it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And if google drops out of the OIN does that not leave them open to be sued by the OIN for using those very patents or is that an exception?
I know nothing about patent law but that's my interpretation
Re:So what happens when someone buys Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good move but... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
OIN Training? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OIN Training? (Score:5, Funny)
Open Invention Network Training: More Exciting New Technology
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And, oh yeah... FUCK REGISTER.COM
I, for one, welcome our... (Score:1)
-WtC
*please insert sig*
"Spitting in the wind" Bruce Perens... (Score:2)
Now that GPL3 has neutered patent threats from Microsoft, Google's tie-up with the OIN seems actually a bad PR move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fun fact (Score:5, Funny)
Rob
Re:Fun fact (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, they were disbanded after a legal challenge by the Seattle Microsoft Advanced Users Group (SMAUG). Cost them a mountain of gold....
Sony? (Score:1)