Novell patent pool filing by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, EMC withdrawn
A plan created by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC to create a consortium to acquire hundreds of Novell patents has been withdrawn after complaints from open source advocates, leaving the fate of the nearly half billion dollars' worth of patents uncertain.
It was first revealed in mid December that the four companies had set up CPTN Holdings LLC to jointly acquire 882 Novell patents for $442 million.
The rest of Novell was to be sold to Attachmate for $2.2 billion, with that sale being "conditioned upon the closing of the proposed sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC." according to the original Novell press release about the acquisiton.
However, according to a new PC World report, the filing with German regulators to create the joint entity has been voluntarily withdrawn, with no information available to explain why.
Open source controversy
The pact had drawn intense criticism from open source advocates, with both the American Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) filing complaints about the plans with the German Federal Cartel Office, which had received the original CPTN proposal.
The report noted that the filing was too new to have actually been rejected by German authorities, as no investigation had yet occurred, indicating that the CPTN members had voluntarily backed out of the filing. Whether the legal entity will be set up in another location, or under different terms, or dissolved entirely, is still yet unknown.
Free software groups expressed serious concerns that Novell's patents very likely involved a variety of concepts related to free software technologies, given the company's ownership of SUSE Linux and Ximian and its relationship with other free software projects including OpenOffice and Mono.
Novell was also a founding member of and major contributor to the Open Invention Network, a group created by IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat and Sony to hold patents specially for use in defending free software from outside patent attacks.
Complaints from the OSI, FSFE
The OSI filed a letter complaining that, "the founders and leaders of CPTN have a long history of opposing and misrepresenting the value of open source software, which is at the heart of Web infrastructure and of many of the most widely used software products and services. The sole or leading competition for several products from the CPTN principals are open source."
FSFE president Karsten Gerloff added that "in many markets (such as operating systems, desktop productivity, web servers), Free Software programs are the key competitors to Microsoft's offerings. And Microsoft has used patent lawsuits to stifle competition from Free Software (e.g. TomTom), and has long used unsubstantiated patent claims for a continued campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt against Free Software."
Gerloff noted that the CPTN members could, in addition to directly thwarting open source, also transfer the patents to "non-practicing entities," or companies that exist only to sue others over patents they hold, commonly referred to a patent trolls.
"In September 2009," Gerloff pointed out, "Microsoft sold 22 patents related to GNU/Linux during an auction where only non-practicing entities were invited."
Fears about Android
Google's Android OS is already being sued by Oracle, which recently acquired Sun and subsequently has accused Android of infringing Sun's Java-related patents to create Android's Dvalik, a Java-like virtual machine platform that works like Java and uses the Java language without technically being Java, therefore escaping (in Google's view) the licensing requirements of Java.
Oracle is seeking to force Google to legitimately license Java, something that would add cost to Android and may require a significant redesign or complete replacement of its core virtual machine architecture.
The involvement of Oracle in the CPTN pact had only heightened existing concerns. Both Microsoft and Apple are also direct competitors to Google's Android, and both companies have sued (and been sued by) Android licensees, although neither Microsoft nor Apple have taken any legal action against Google directly related to Android.
While Microsoft has threatened to take nonspecific patent-infringement actions against other companies that make use of Linux and OpenOffice, and financially supported SCO as it ensnared a variety of companies using Linux in a legal quagmire that dragged on for years, Apple has typically reserved its patent library for defensive purposes.
As the most sued tech company on the planet, Apple has repeatedly fought to nullify patents or settle patent claims using patent cross-licensing. Apple formed such deals with both Microsoft and Creative, and has shot down a variety of patents that other companies paid millions to settle, including a large number of Burst.com patents.
Apple is currently involved in a variety of patent disputes with Nokia, Motorola and HTC, and is also fending off renewed patent claims from former Microsoft founder Paul Allen's "non-practicing entity."
It was first revealed in mid December that the four companies had set up CPTN Holdings LLC to jointly acquire 882 Novell patents for $442 million.
The rest of Novell was to be sold to Attachmate for $2.2 billion, with that sale being "conditioned upon the closing of the proposed sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC." according to the original Novell press release about the acquisiton.
However, according to a new PC World report, the filing with German regulators to create the joint entity has been voluntarily withdrawn, with no information available to explain why.
Open source controversy
The pact had drawn intense criticism from open source advocates, with both the American Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) filing complaints about the plans with the German Federal Cartel Office, which had received the original CPTN proposal.
The report noted that the filing was too new to have actually been rejected by German authorities, as no investigation had yet occurred, indicating that the CPTN members had voluntarily backed out of the filing. Whether the legal entity will be set up in another location, or under different terms, or dissolved entirely, is still yet unknown.
Free software groups expressed serious concerns that Novell's patents very likely involved a variety of concepts related to free software technologies, given the company's ownership of SUSE Linux and Ximian and its relationship with other free software projects including OpenOffice and Mono.
Novell was also a founding member of and major contributor to the Open Invention Network, a group created by IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat and Sony to hold patents specially for use in defending free software from outside patent attacks.
Complaints from the OSI, FSFE
The OSI filed a letter complaining that, "the founders and leaders of CPTN have a long history of opposing and misrepresenting the value of open source software, which is at the heart of Web infrastructure and of many of the most widely used software products and services. The sole or leading competition for several products from the CPTN principals are open source."
FSFE president Karsten Gerloff added that "in many markets (such as operating systems, desktop productivity, web servers), Free Software programs are the key competitors to Microsoft's offerings. And Microsoft has used patent lawsuits to stifle competition from Free Software (e.g. TomTom), and has long used unsubstantiated patent claims for a continued campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt against Free Software."
Gerloff noted that the CPTN members could, in addition to directly thwarting open source, also transfer the patents to "non-practicing entities," or companies that exist only to sue others over patents they hold, commonly referred to a patent trolls.
"In September 2009," Gerloff pointed out, "Microsoft sold 22 patents related to GNU/Linux during an auction where only non-practicing entities were invited."
Fears about Android
Google's Android OS is already being sued by Oracle, which recently acquired Sun and subsequently has accused Android of infringing Sun's Java-related patents to create Android's Dvalik, a Java-like virtual machine platform that works like Java and uses the Java language without technically being Java, therefore escaping (in Google's view) the licensing requirements of Java.
Oracle is seeking to force Google to legitimately license Java, something that would add cost to Android and may require a significant redesign or complete replacement of its core virtual machine architecture.
The involvement of Oracle in the CPTN pact had only heightened existing concerns. Both Microsoft and Apple are also direct competitors to Google's Android, and both companies have sued (and been sued by) Android licensees, although neither Microsoft nor Apple have taken any legal action against Google directly related to Android.
While Microsoft has threatened to take nonspecific patent-infringement actions against other companies that make use of Linux and OpenOffice, and financially supported SCO as it ensnared a variety of companies using Linux in a legal quagmire that dragged on for years, Apple has typically reserved its patent library for defensive purposes.
As the most sued tech company on the planet, Apple has repeatedly fought to nullify patents or settle patent claims using patent cross-licensing. Apple formed such deals with both Microsoft and Creative, and has shot down a variety of patents that other companies paid millions to settle, including a large number of Burst.com patents.
Apple is currently involved in a variety of patent disputes with Nokia, Motorola and HTC, and is also fending off renewed patent claims from former Microsoft founder Paul Allen's "non-practicing entity."
Comments
A plan created by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC to create a consortium to acquire hundreds of Novell patents has been withdrawn after complaints from open source advocates, leaving the fate of the nearly half billion dollars' worth of patents uncertain.
Planning to become patent whores was bad enough, but now they pull the rug out at the last minute and screw up the whole deal?
Geez. Buy them and donate them to the public domain. It's chicken feed to multinational players like these.
Planning to become patent whores was bad enough, but now they pull the rug out at the last minute and screw up the whole deal?
Geez. Buy them and donate them to the public domain. It's chicken feed to multinational players like these.
Thanks for weighing in, tekstud.
Free software groups expressed serious concerns that Novell's patents very likely involved a variety of concepts related to free software technologies, given the company's ownership of SUSE Linux and Ximian and its relationship with other free software projects including OpenOffice and Mono.
So, the Free Software groups want to freeload on proprietary work and patents now? Given the latest dust-up over VLC I thought the freetards were the ones making the big deal about freeloading.
They use copyright as their threat and sword, but that isn't that different from patent when it comes to comparing implementations in a courtroom. Way different means of protecting IP, but copyright and patents are both just about protecting IP.
Freeloading is freeloading, whether you call yourself a Free Software supporter, an Open Source supporter, or merely an open source/open standards supporter (capitalization counts heavily in this sentence). Whining about it, or the potential for it, after the fact does not make illegal freeloading legal. If Novell granted any patents in perpetuity to public domain or an open source organization, they will remain that way. If Novell didn't, the coders that accepted that code into the open source made some grave errors quite explicitly.
The standards organizations are VERY meticulous about that kind of thing. Being cavalier and sloppy in the name of "Free" anything is just plain a bad way to conduct business. Having seen how many (which probably means almost all) projects vet code, which doesn't come with any questions as to whether or not the commits may be encumbered, just equates to "Hear no IP, See no IP, Consider it all my IP".
Frankly I would love to let the a group like the FSF have it's day in court and see whether this form of ignorance can be legally considered a shield.
Thanks for sharing the news. I disagree with the suggestion above that it be put into public domain. When you remove commercial incentive from innovation, their is less of it.
Also, nearly every professional with a 401k, IRA,stocks, or a job has a vested interest in intellectual property. That's not what this country was built on. Also, from a standpoint of litigation. Innovation that can be protected leads to heavy investment which (if successful), leads to profits, leads to growth, jobs, shareholder dividends, etc.
Jake
Right. And losers like you perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing as "intellectual property." Take your stupid plug and sod off.
Likewise, I wish RedHat or Google had acquired and GPL'd all of Sun's IP. That would have been a game changer.
Oracle's attempts to underfund and close Sun's open source projects only seem to be making them less desirable and less valuable, and ultimately, make oracle less competitive.
Frankly I would love to let the a group like the FSF have it's day in court and see whether this form of ignorance can be legally considered a shield.
The FSF and the various open source licenses have had many, many days in court all over the world in the past 15 years and been upheld and have come out on top just about every time. Why would this be any different?
So, the Free Software groups want to freeload on proprietary work and patents now? Given the latest dust-up over VLC I thought the freetards were the ones making the big deal about freeloading. ...
Ironically, it'll probably all be auctioned off to patent trolls, and, in a few years, someone will be using it to shutdown some major open source project.
So, the Free Software groups want to freeload on proprietary work and patents now? Given the latest dust-up over VLC I thought the freetards were the ones making the big deal about freeloading.
They use copyright as their threat and sword, but that isn't that different from patent when it comes to comparing implementations in a courtroom. Way different means of protecting IP, but copyright and patents are both just about protecting IP.
Freeloading is freeloading, whether you call yourself a Free Software supporter, an Open Source supporter, or merely an open source/open standards supporter (capitalization counts heavily in this sentence). Whining about it, or the potential for it, after the fact does not make illegal freeloading legal. If Novell granted any patents in perpetuity to public domain or an open source organization, they will remain that way. If Novell didn't, the coders that accepted that code into the open source made some grave errors quite explicitly.
The standards organizations are VERY meticulous about that kind of thing. Being cavalier and sloppy in the name of "Free" anything is just plain a bad way to conduct business. Having seen how many (which probably means almost all) projects vet code, which doesn't come with any questions as to whether or not the commits may be encumbered, just equates to "Hear no IP, See no IP, Consider it all my IP".
Frankly I would love to let the a group like the FSF have it's day in court and see whether this form of ignorance can be legally considered a shield.
Or we can just keep the broken system as it is and walk over the patent mine field, get sued by patent trolls in Texas over something as simple as "double-clicking".
Do you think shit like this should have been approved? Or this?
Thanks for sharing the news. I disagree with the suggestion above that it be put into public domain. When you remove commercial incentive from innovation, their is less of it.
Also, nearly every professional with a 401k, IRA,stocks, or a job has a vested interest in intellectual property. That's not what this country was built on. Also, from a standpoint of litigation. Innovation that can be protected leads to heavy investment which (if successful), leads to profits, leads to growth, jobs, shareholder dividends, etc.
It is a charitable write-off to donate the patents. Reasonable value to shareholders.
As for the premise that existing, developed patents reduce the value of pending patents and reduce incentive to innovate... methinks someone has a vested interest in the status quo.
Software and business method patents should never been allowed to exist in the same domain as material inventions. Software should be dealt with as trademark and copyright only... business methods maybe earn two or three years of exclusivity.
The system today stifles innovation and creates a completely wasted layer of administrative overhead. Patent Trolls create no value, they simply live to sue. "Nobody" is trying to sell their idea to someone else to implement... it is all just tiny pieces of a greater whole.
Planning to become patent whores was bad enough, but now they pull the rug out at the last minute and screw up the whole deal?
Geez. Buy them and donate them to the public domain. It's chicken feed to multinational players like these.
They don't have to do a damn thing.
The FSF and the various open source licenses have had many, many days in court all over the world in the past 15 years and been upheld and have come out on top just about every time. Why would this be any different?
Because They have taken well documented cases to court. They have a set of good lawyers, give them credit because the threat of their lawyers far outstrips the actual number of available hours they could work.
The problem they would have is if a patent holder could take the same sort of well documented case against them. And that patent holder could very well be someone who purchases one of the Novell patents. If improperly vetted code that is covered by a non-granted patent in in a FSF package and the appropriate patent holder sued, FSF would be up the same creek they put license breaker in.
The irony of getting sued for misappropriated code when they have a legion of folks looking for misappropriated GNU code would be simply glorious. (I doubt it would ever happen though)
My personal issue with the GPL community is the extremely self-serving definition of "free". I know there is a body of very good code they curate, but I am not fond of the FSF politics.
I am a big fan of non-viral open source code licenses. The concept of "freeloading" doesn't exist in those licenses, the code is shared without restriction other than maybe attribution for contribution. If an entity doesn't want to give back code, that's OK, the code was offered without those strings. I really think more companies would play as nice open source citizens and contribute to the development of the mundane under the hood stuff when the aren't threatened with a do this our way or else. Can a non-viral licensed project have the same problem I mention above? Sure, but there wouldn't be the irony of the no-freeloaders getting caught for freeloading should it ever be identified.
Planning to become patent ****s was bad enough, but now they pull the rug out at the last minute and screw up the whole deal?
Geez. Buy them and donate them to the public domain. It's chicken feed to multinational players like these.
Agreed, better to buy em up & donate them than let them get bought up by no name companies that will then tie them all up in endless frivolous lawsuits.
Or we can just keep the broken system as it is and walk over the patent mine field, get sued by patent trolls in Texas over something as simple as "double-clicking".
This thread isn't about the system. But I think that consortium buying the patents would have been a good thing precisely because it would have kept them out of the hands of patent trolls. Apple, & MS at least tend to not sue over patents until it is a countersuit to something, then they are ruthless and have been for years. Not sure about Oracle or EMC.
Maybe they pulled out because as principals they got to see the exact portfolio once they bid as part of the due process game and realized it wasn't a threat to them because of what they already held.
Do you think shit like this should have been approved? Or this?
First one no, that looks like clear case of patent abuse, or a hoax, I don't know which. Second one yes. The second one seems to be about a process for packaging a certain kind of sandwich in a certain specific way with concrete equipment to do the job and create a sandwich that does things no current sandwich could do (don't leak gooey stuff on the way to market or in lunch boxes)
Agreed, better to buy em up & donate them than let them get bought up by no name companies that will then tie them all up in endless frivolous lawsuits.
Buying and burying is pretty reasonable too.
2. Make them open source.
3. Receive praise from the masses.
I could quote any number of interesting posts. Take the one below: I wouldn't get derisive and use terms like "freetards," and we could argue about where "reasonable use" ends and "freeloading" begins, but the point about the need to adhere to established patent law in determining who owns what rights to what is key.
But on the other hand, the vibrancy and commitment of many in the open-source community - and some of the results to date - certainly indicate that there is more than one useful model for developing software. Driving proprietary profit-motivated code into the market is one - and the one with the strongest tradition in the Western world - but open-source is another - which might never achieve the market penetration and rate of development of the capitalistic model, but which can co-exist and occupy an interesting, vital and useful part of the landscape.
And seriously, Mods, stay on spam control. If AI is truly emotionally invested in what happens on these forums, it follows that at least someone on the staff should always be monitoring new posts for attacks. Seriously.
So, the Free Software groups want to freeload on proprietary work and patents now? Given the latest dust-up over VLC I thought the freetards were the ones making the big deal about freeloading.
They use copyright as their threat and sword, but that isn't that different from patent when it comes to comparing implementations in a courtroom. Way different means of protecting IP, but copyright and patents are both just about protecting IP.
Freeloading is freeloading, whether you call yourself a Free Software supporter, an Open Source supporter, or merely an open source/open standards supporter (capitalization counts heavily in this sentence). Whining about it, or the potential for it, after the fact does not make illegal freeloading legal. If Novell granted any patents in perpetuity to public domain or an open source organization, they will remain that way. If Novell didn't, the coders that accepted that code into the open source made some grave errors quite explicitly.
The standards organizations are VERY meticulous about that kind of thing. Being cavalier and sloppy in the name of "Free" anything is just plain a bad way to conduct business. Having seen how many (which probably means almost all) projects vet code, which doesn't come with any questions as to whether or not the commits may be encumbered, just equates to "Hear no IP, See no IP, Consider it all my IP".
Frankly I would love to let the a group like the FSF have it's day in court and see whether this form of ignorance can be legally considered a shield.
So, the Free Software groups want to freeload on proprietary work and patents now? Given the latest dust-up over VLC I thought the freetards were the ones making the big deal about freeloading.
They use copyright as their threat and sword, but that isn't that different from patent when it comes to comparing implementations in a courtroom. Way different means of protecting IP, but copyright and patents are both just about protecting IP.
Freeloading is freeloading, whether you call yourself a Free Software supporter, an Open Source supporter, or merely an open source/open standards supporter (capitalization counts heavily in this sentence). Whining about it, or the potential for it, after the fact does not make illegal freeloading legal. If Novell granted any patents in perpetuity to public domain or an open source organization, they will remain that way. If Novell didn't, the coders that accepted that code into the open source made some grave errors quite explicitly.
The standards organizations are VERY meticulous about that kind of thing. Being cavalier and sloppy in the name of "Free" anything is just plain a bad way to conduct business. Having seen how many (which probably means almost all) projects vet code, which doesn't come with any questions as to whether or not the commits may be encumbered, just equates to "Hear no IP, See no IP, Consider it all my IP".
Frankly I would love to let the a group like the FSF have it's day in court and see whether this form of ignorance can be legally considered a shield.
freeload? freetards? isn't there a lot of BSD code in use in os x? think there would even be Mach if not for open licensing?
this isn't about freeloading, its about proprietary systems trying to squash out the opensource alternatives. thats what the 'freetards' are worried about.
freeload? freetards? isn't there a lot of BSD code in use in os x? think there would even be Mach if not for open licensing?
this isn't about freeloading, its about proprietary systems trying to squash out the opensource alternatives. thats what the 'freetards' are worried about.
The GPL crowd most definitely made Open Source licenses such as GPL very much about freeloading. Just because we aren't in a thread where GPL aficionados have claimed this or not claimed this does not change the fact that the main reason GPL copyright is enforced is to explicitly prevent freeloading - defined as using licensed code without contributing back to the community. The concept is shrouded in other legaleese, but preventing "freeloading" by proprietary users is substantially what FSF is about.
Your point on trying to prevent proprietary from quashing open source code is a simple red herring. legitimate open source code cannot be quashed, it's out there in the public domain. It just needs to abide by the same IP rules to remain legitimate. If you want to consider that requirement an avenue to quashing you are not being realistic within the current legal system.
As for BSD code in OSX, you make my point for me! Thank you! Freeloading as GPL see is is not possible in the BSD license world because code is given freely to all with absolutely zero expectation of give-back. The code is truly a gift to society for ANYONE to use. GPL has so many restrictions on what may be done with the code that that isn't true unless you live in Utopia, the business cases that work with GPL code exist but are difficult as well as few and far between. Business cases that work with BSD code are far more prevalent.
You also seem to have stopped reading my post as you attemp to chastise me by saying "think there would even be Mach if not for open licensing", like you believe I am not an open source advocate. You are terribly mistaken and badly misinformed about what open source is and my support of open source software (not FSF free software or OSI Open Source).
Open Source is not open source, Open Source is a label you have to get from the Open Source Initiative following their particular very narrow definition. Open Source is just a non-profit that is more realistic than FSF, but still quite restrictive. You don't need their blessing to put your source code out in the wild, but OSI gets pissy with many organizations who do post their code but don't adhere to the OSI definition of Open Source. That's just wasted effort on societies part.
GPL is not open source, it is free software. The GPL family of licenses restrict the ability to use the code without giving back anything you do with it. That isn't open, it's greedy and restrictive in a way that makes it difficult for business to use effectively. I see it as a bunch of guys who are jealous that somebody else might get rich, rather than altruistic folks who just make their volunteered efforts available. That's fair even though I don't like the attitude, but it isn't open it's very restrictive.
Software that is merely open source is given to the world to use within whatever limits the grantor wants to make. BSD is permissive, you pretty much only need to make attribution to comply, even the vilified APSL is awfully permissive, it's main difference is granting use of APSL code which is patent encumbered, licensing those patents to the user as far as they are part of the APSL code, without that the code would be dangerous to use. OSI doesn't like the clause on patents because it doesn't blanket-grant patents to projects that use APSL code so they don't consider it Open Source. That's downright pedantic and petty.
If somebody wants to post their code online and allow it's use without forcing future derived work to be licensed a particular way, but have some limits to how it may be used, e.g. as non-commercial use, that's open source. The source is in the open and the owner has every right to say how it can be used. I draw the line at restricting the use of the term open source to narrow definitions such as when the user retains the right to say how I MUST USE LICENSE OWN CODE if it so much as touches his code. That's not open it's (usually) Free without my freedoms taken into consideration.
The GPL crowd most definitely made Open Source licenses such as GPL very much about freeloading. Just because we aren't in a thread where GPL aficionados have claimed this or not claimed this does not change the fact that the main reason GPL copyright is enforced is to explicitly prevent freeloading - defined as using licensed code without contributing back to the community. The concept is shrouded in other legaleese, but preventing "freeloading" by proprietary users is substantially what FSF is about.
Your point on trying to prevent proprietary from quashing open source code is a simple red herring. legitimate open source code cannot be quashed, it's out there in the public domain. It just needs to abide by the same IP rules to remain legitimate. If you want to consider that requirement an avenue to quashing you are not being realistic within the current legal system.
As for BSD code in OSX, you make my point for me! Thank you! Freeloading as GPL see is is not possible in the BSD license world because code is given freely to all with absolutely zero expectation of give-back. The code is truly a gift to society for ANYONE to use. GPL has so many restrictions on what may be done with the code that that isn't true unless you live in Utopia, the business cases that work with GPL code exist but are difficult as well as few and far between. Business cases that work with BSD code are far more prevalent.
You also seem to have stopped reading my post as you attemp to chastise me by saying "think there would even be Mach if not for open licensing", like you believe I am not an open source advocate. You are terribly mistaken and badly misinformed about what open source is and my support of open source software (not FSF free software or OSI Open Source).
Open Source is not open source, Open Source is a label you have to get from the Open Source Initiative following their particular very narrow definition. Open Source is just a non-profit that is more realistic than FSF, but still quite restrictive. You don't need their blessing to put your source code out in the wild, but OSI gets pissy with many organizations who do post their code but don't adhere to the OSI definition of Open Source. That's just wasted effort on societies part.
GPL is not open source, it is free software. The GPL family of licenses restrict the ability to use the code without giving back anything you do with it. That isn't open, it's greedy and restrictive in a way that makes it difficult for business to use effectively. I see it as a bunch of guys who are jealous that somebody else might get rich, rather than altruistic folks who just make their volunteered efforts available. That's fair even though I don't like the attitude, but it isn't open it's very restrictive.
Software that is merely open source is given to the world to use within whatever limits the grantor wants to make. BSD is permissive, you pretty much only need to make attribution to comply, even the vilified APSL is awfully permissive, it's main difference is granting use of APSL code which is patent encumbered, licensing those patents to the user as far as they are part of the APSL code, without that the code would be dangerous to use. OSI doesn't like the clause on patents because it doesn't blanket-grant patents to projects that use APSL code so they don't consider it Open Source. That's downright pedantic and petty.
If somebody wants to post their code online and allow it's use without forcing future derived work to be licensed a particular way, but have some limits to how it may be used, e.g. as non-commercial use, that's open source. The source is in the open and the owner has every right to say how it can be used. I draw the line at restricting the use of the term open source to narrow definitions such as when the user retains the right to say how I MUST USE LICENSE OWN CODE if it so much as touches his code. That's not open it's (usually) Free without my freedoms taken into consideration.
BSD license is a license to 'freeload' and gpl is a license to try and stop 'freeloading'.
i am not talking about that. if you think those companies are wanting the patents just so they can implement the code you are crazy.
i am talking about the patents. those companies want the patents because they believe that some core aspects of some critical 'open source' software out there infringes and these patents would be more ammunition for that.
you would get more positive and genuine consideration of your points if you refrained from using words like 'freetard'.