On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Flegg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 08:44, David Greaves <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "The Linux Foundation have told us in private conversations that they > will > > not permit apps.meego.com to be served from the MeeGo.com > infrastructure > > hosted by them. They do not have the resource at this time to provide a > > statement giving their reasons. We can not assess what other services may > be > > impacted in the future." > > Concern of patents in the US seem to be one of the primary concerns > (as far as can be gathered, IIRC). > GNU/Linux is different from iOS and Android/Linux. A lot of GNU/Linux software is GPL v3 which expressly creates a patent pool around the GPL v3 software. The license itself is designed to address the cost of patent trolls. It is highly unlikely one will see patent litigation against GNU/Linux distros, not just because of the GPL v3 but also because of the Linux "business model" and the many companies behind the scenes who rely on Linux for their business. LF may say its patents that is stopping them but I'm suspicious. > What mechanisms does the Project have to ensure that the MeeGo Core > doesn't have patent-infringing code in place? There are very few mechanisms available. The first and most important is actually not to read patents if you are developing software because if you've knowingly violated a patent then you are liable for treble damages. There are tools to screen code and check for potential copyright violations. For example; fossology http://fossology.org/ and protex. While these tools might help you spot when a developer has done cut and paste, it won't indemnify you against patent claims. For that you're on your own. > Is the risk something > somehow delegated to the copyright holders (e.g. Intel)? If so, how is > this compatible with individual patches submitted by contributors (I'm > not aware of a contributor agreement)? > > Is this something the Project needs to be more widely concerned about > & address? Definitely. > Or, are there processes which might be adaptable to > COBS/apps.meego.com? > There are ways to create a repository full of applications that work on various Linux distros and assure that the software is free from patent claims, properly licensed and backed by a commercial entity. Look at Software in the Public Interest and Debian. If you want a contributor agreement, look at Project Harmony (or not) as it seems to be built around a Debian fork (Ubuntu) and designed to address the issues of copyright, licensing and commercial viability. If you want to do a contributor agreement, compatibility with MeeGo, and any kind of patent indemnification, you'll need to strictly adhere to the LF's policies for compliance and trademark. All of this leads me back to Dan Frye's comment: "Don't start your own project, join someone else's." The legal problem has largely been solved with Free Software licenses. The Artistic License for example has won court battles and the Bilsky decision is helping to erode software patent litigation in the US. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski The point being that MeeGo itself is originally a fork who's purpose was to serve as a marketing tool for Intel. They gave MeeGo to the LF to demonstrate its independence from Intel but the LF is not inclined to indemnify one single GNU/Linux distro above all the others, its job is to promote Linuxcon and protect the so-called IP around the Linux kernel. MeeGo (or its predecessor Moblin) should never have been created, instead Intel should have contributed upstream to Debian or Fedora which have the proper governance and protections to ensure licenses and that the distro is really part of a community. Regards, Jeremiah
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
