From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262687AbTLUKx5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:53:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262694AbTLUKx5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:53:57 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:36999 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262687AbTLUKxy (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:53:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:53:33 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Albert Cahalan Cc: linux-kernel mailing list , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not? Message-ID: <20031221105333.GC3438@mail.shareable.org> References: <1071969177.1742.112.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1071969177.1742.112.camel@cube> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Albert Cahalan wrote: > What about the obvious Kconfig option? > > config PATENT_1234567890 > bool "Patent 1234567890" > default n > help > Say Y here if you have the right to use > patent 1234567890 (the foo patent). Some > countries do not recognise this patent, an > educational or research exemption may apply, > you may be the patent holder, the patent > may have expired, or you may have aquired > rights via licensing. Seek legal help if you > need advice concerning your rights. If unsure, > say N. I expect this was said in jest, but it would be delightful to see this done for real. To the best of my knowlege it's uncharted territory, so perhaps what you suggest _would_ be upheld in a court of law as permissible? 1. You seggragate code using the feature so that if it is not explicitly activated, then the patented method will not be used. 2. You are clearly informing the recipient of the software of their need to determine for themselves whether they are permitted to use the feature, and suggest how they can go about this. 3. Using the patented method requires a clear, explicit step by the recipient of the software, with no potential for misunderstanding. It is just as clear as those disclaimer buttons, ensuring that a user knows their rights and duties and agrees to them before they are allowed access to something. Closed source commercial software already does this sort of thing. Was it not the case that if you purchased the appropriate license from Unisys, you were then permitted to activate the GIF writing support of Photoshop or some similar product, and that was done with an activation code that you typed in to the program. CONFIG_PATENT_nnnnnnnnn is the same thing, yet we are wary of distributing open source software like that. Is the significant difference that it's too easy to enable without a license? That may well prove to be the determining factor in clarifying the legal boundary of of who is liable - the sender of disabled code, or the recipient who enables it without permission. Certainly it cannot be justified under law that, even as closed source implementations are distributed using activation code methods, the open source implementations are not distributable solely because they can be read by anyone. Patent holders do not have the power, at least not in law, to prevent sharing written explanations of a method, do they? I thought it had something to do with _using_ the methods, although it continues to be a bit ambiguous what a patent holder may restrict and what they have no legal right to restrict in this field. -- Jamie