From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 7 21:02:33 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8EB10656BA for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:02:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 978C58FC16 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6070 invoked by uid 0); 7 Nov 2010 21:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2010 21:02:33 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=OqKnGAa1AmLoywQ0HJTUkJ8IX5q2hhJRsau42yoPD3gDkxVey7d1lBXQr+7odejxQKYGDxuYH58cqnw8nA4+kAATa11cwKtcgrFgu2HfpxUMz/yXLA8LquNLMhzyuJxb; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PFCNj-0005Dt-Rn for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:02:32 -0700 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:56:33 -0700 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:56:33 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20101107205633.GF17565@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> <4CD4DD2C.1090407@too1337.com> <20101106161031.GB12418@guilt.hydra> <4CD6DF1F.9040604@infracaninophile.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CD6DF1F.9040604@infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:02:34 -0000 --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--