TomTom fights Microsoft to protect GPL?

It's just *a* license

You are correct that adding code to the GPL would require automatic sub-licensing rights of that imported code. This is one of the issues that killed Microsoft's SenderID/SIDF standardization bid, for example.

However, don't forget that GPL is just one license that a developer can choose. A body of code can be licensed under more than one scheme simultaneously.

For example, if a vendor wanted to use GPL'ed code but didn't want to agree to the GPL, the vendor could negotiate with the code's owners for a special license. This might involve money changing hands or some other quid pro quo, instead of the GPL's reciprocity.

True, just "A" licence, but . . . .

The GPL is probably the most common license for Open Source projects. This means that the developers starting new projects, that are great technicians, but not lawyers, can easily accidentally lock their project out of using any copyrighted code.

Yes, things can be negotiated, but if the project team has nothing the code owner deems adequate compensation for giving up their copyrighted code forever, this could easily limit Open Source as a viable option.

The FSF is looked to by the development community as a group that protects them. The absolute requirement that GPL'd code owners must protect all future users by granting full license to all code contained in the project severely limits flexibility.

It also contributes to two completely seperate camps, each fighting with each other over who owns the copyrighted code and what code is open to the world to use. FSF may be staffed with lawyers that can fight for the freedom of code, but commercial enterprises (not jut Microsoft) have Congress. Not even a fair fight. Commercial enterprises will win every time. Just look at the much beloved Disney. Mickey Mouse was about to come out of copyright, so Disney got it extended for another 75 years or something like that.

This little conundrum severely limits flexibility and the abiltiy to mix the two communities. It also renders much of the Open Source code unusable by businesses such as Tom Tom.

Not something that should be taken lightly.

"FSF may be staffed with

"FSF may be staffed with lawyers that can fight for the freedom of code, but commercial enterprises (not jut Microsoft) have Congress. "

No worries there, comrade! Congress is now safely in the hands of Democrat Party and White House safely in hands of Obama!

You will see now triumph of Free Software and final death of Capitalism! Democrat Congress crush Microsoft! Obama crush market! No more rich people! People win! No more software company, only noble, enlightened programmers work for free to serve people!

You cannot bribe Democrat Party with business interests! You cannot bribe Obama with commercial concerns! Market already in 6000's and not yet first 100 days! Soon Carbon Tax drive it down to 3000's and then no more Microsoft, no more Tom Tom, no more commercial companies, no more jobs to enslave noble programmers who would rather work for free! Yes we can!

Ob...

No political rants, please, @YesWeCan.

                            __________________________
                   /|  /|  |                          |
                   ||__||  |       Please don't       |
                  /   O O\__           feed           |
                 /          \       the trolls        |
                /      \     \                        |
               /   _    \     \ ----------------------
              /    |\____\     \     ||               
             /     | | | |\____/     ||               
            /       \|_|_|/   |    __||               
           /  /  \            |____| ||               
          /   |   | /|        |      --|             
          |   |   |//         |____  --|             
   * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/               
*-- _--\ _ \     //           |                       
  /  _     \\ _ //   |        /                       
*  /   \_ /- | -     |       |                       
  *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 

Eh?

I read your comment four times, but I'm not really clear what your point is.

How is it that GPL code is "unusable" by TomTom, seeing as their units run on Linux?

Tom Tom's scenario

If I read the article correctly, the issue isn't so much Linux as the GPL.

Tom Tom is using Linux which is licensed under the GPL. So, if like all good Open Source vendors they should give code back to the community.

The code they are using at this point is claimed by MS under Copyright or Intellectual Property. Microsoft is litigating under this law.

Back to the GPL. If a vendor such as Tom Tom wishes to use copyrighted or IP code, it must obtain a license that indemnifies all future users of the code that license it under the GPL.

This causes a problem. If Microsoft doesn't want to license all future uses of the code, and Tom Tom pays just for its own license from Microsoft, Tom Tom is in violation of the GPL. If Tom Tom doesn't pay Microsoft for the code, legally Tom Tom can't use the code.

Assuming now that Microsoft really does own the code and that Microsoft prevails in court, all future vendors will need to examine how the GPL (Linux if you will) interacts with copyrighted code licenses.

If the GPL cannot find a way to mix with commercially owned and managed code, this inability makes GPL'd code pretty much useless to other commercial vendors such as Tom Tom as most features, ideas, advances, etc are either copyrighted or considered intellectual property.

In other words, Open Source has never, so far as I know, of invented anything new. The vast majority if not all new inventions in the software world came from the commercial vendors.

(yes I've had this argument many times and usually the Open Sourcers provide the information required to prove the point)

Since the vast majority of inventions come from the commercial side, the inability to license for one-off products such as Tom Tom severely hampers the ability of Open Source to be used in a business such as Tom Tom.

If Tom Tom loses the suit, this will be a cold one for the Open Source community. Even Open Source cannot thrive without access to the Copyrighted or Intellectual Property of the corporate world.

Backwards

James, I think you have it a bit backwards.

Nobody is suggesting that there is Microsoft-copyright code embedded in TomTom devices. You are, I suspect, confusing copyright with patent. Both are lumped together in the catch-all phrase "intellectual property," but are quite different animals.

Microsoft is claiming patent protection over certain alleged inventions that TomTom is presumably using. However, these inventions are variously believed to fail the novelty and/or "obviousness" tests required for a patent to be defended. (Note that these tests are not in practice required for a software patent to be grated in the U.S.)

Further, such "business methods" patents are believed to have been invalided by case law -- specifically the In re Bilksy verdict (see posts passim).

As to your claim that nothing has ever been invented by open source authorship, was it your intention to troll for a flame war? ;-)

It sounds like what you actually mean is that nothing has been patented as a result of open source. Well, of course, not -- this is so almost by definition. Software patents are an anathema to licenses such as the GPL.

Yes, you are correct

I am lumping both patent and copyright together as IP. This is, as you point out, incorrect.

As for the Nothing invented by Open Source, I stand by that. Last time the flame war started, the Open Source folks actually proved the point. Open Source typically refines, or does a function differently, however, 99.9% of all inventions are from the commercial side.

If you substitute the term IP for patent and copyright, then the argument probably makes more sense.

By the way, to label someone a troll just because they disagree is offensive to everyone. As an IT professional with over 25 years in the business, it is amazing how the Open Source communities arrogance has relegated it to the back room repeatedly. Yes, I work for a company with well over 50K employees and I think we have one or possibly two Linux servers and they came in under dubious circumstances.

For Linux to reach the forefront of the business and consumer worlds, the arrogance must be tempered with a willingness to abide by the law, quit whining about how MS rules the world, etc. MS may be a nasty beast to deal with now, but they made money by taking risks no one else would at the time.

The term of Troll is stupid as more Open Source types incite the arguments by shouting down other opinions than most of those labeled as trolls. Besides, there wouldn't be trolls if the Open Source types would be civil in most cases. The fun for those you would call trolls is to cause the Open Source types to lose their tempers and look like idiots.

So, for you, don't feed the Open Source shouters either. It encourages the trolls.

Re: Yes, you are correct

To be clear, it's @YesWeCan who I'm calling a troll, with his misplaced political rant.

No, there's nothing "incorrect" about grouping things together with a handy phrase like "IP", but one shouldn't confuse the component parts, which are distinctly different.

OK, so nothing was invented by people writing free software? Except perhaps for email, Unix, TCP/IP, the Web, Kerberos... (I could go on). Nothing of any consequence, for sure ;-)

And before you tell me that the Web was developed by closed-source development, don't forget that it would never have got off the ground if it wasn't open-source to begin with. Instead, we'd be stuck with proprietary islands of MSN, AOL, and the like.

Indeed, all parties' "arrogance must be tempered with a willingness to abide by the law." And also to abide by the constitutionality and subsequent interpretation-cum-case-law of those laws. And also-also to abide by the terms of the licenses and contracts which they have executed.