Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 19, @02:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the umbrella++ dept.

Open Invention Network expands Linux patent protection:

Today, everyone -- yes, even Microsoft -- use Linux and open-source. It's been years since Linux was under attack by SCO for imaginary copyright violations, and then Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer claimed that Linux violated over 200 of Microsoft's patents. So over 15-years ago, the Open Invention Network (OIN) patent consortium was formed to defend Linux against intellectual property (IP) attacks. Even so, Linux and open-source software are still under attack from patent trolls and other attackers. That's where the Open Invention Network (OIN) steps up by expanding its patent non-aggression coverage by updating its Linux System definition.

The OIN, the world's largest patent non-aggression community in history, is adding the following programs and components to the Linux System: .NET, ONNX, tvm, Prometheus, Helm, Notary, Istio, Nix, OpenEmbedded, CoreOS, uClibc-ng, mbed-tls, musl, SPDX, AGL Services, OVN, FuseSoc, Verilator, Flutter, Jasmine, Weex, NodeRED, Eclipse Paho, Californium, Cyclone, and Wakaama, among others. Altogether 337 new software components are being added. This brings the total number of protected packages to 3,730.

Yes, that includes a programming environment, .NET, from Microsoft; Prometheus, the open-source time-series monitoring program; and Helm, the Kubernetes DevOps framework. In short, OIN's protecting parasol against open-source's IP enemies has grown ever wider, ever more protective.

"Linux and open source collaboration continue to thrive as they accelerate the pace of transformation across a spectrum of industries. With this update, we have addressed expansion in key software platforms and projects. Additionally, we have added protection for strategic packages that enable hardware design and embedded applications," said Keith Bergelt, the OIN's CEO.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Wednesday January 19, @07:33PM (1 child)

    by jimtheowl (5929) on Wednesday January 19, @07:33PM (#1213910)
    It seems that you claim to be against patents, yet make a lot of suggestions to the contrary. Pharma uses that R&D rhetoric as well.

    You say you can see the argument, suggesting the argument has merit, then follow by running distractions by saying that the problems is 'something vague' and instead it should be 'something vague'.

    More suggestions follow about incentives, then you claim to reject the 'idea wholly'. Do you really?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday January 19, @07:38PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 19, @07:38PM (#1213913) Journal

    Pharma uses that R&D rhetoric as well.

    The amusing thing is that Big Pharma doesn't do that much R&D. The vast bulk of their expenditures are on advertising. They rely on the NIH to do basic research and develop new drugs. Then they capitalize on them. And find something that makes their process able to be patented.

    --
    Out of control 3 yr old grabs steering wheel of limosuine and throws food against wall in temper tantrum.