OtaSoft

Red Hat and Novell have been hit with the first patent-infringement lawsuit against Linux. Red Hat’s Linux system and Novell’s SuSe Linux Enterprise Desktop and Enterprise Server allegedly infringe on three patents relating to user interfaces within multiple windows, according to the suit filed by two US patent houses.

Enterprise users of these products are protected by indemnification clauses in their contracts that should shield them from intellectual-property litigation.

Novell spokesperson Bruce Lowry said the company was assessing the lawsuit. “Obviously, we’ll defend our interests,” he said. “But it’s too early at this stage to talk about specifics on this case, including whether there might be a role for a joint approach with Red Hat.”

The suit jointly filed by Texas-based IP Innovation and Nevada-based Technology Licensing Corp. They are seeking unspecified damages and royalty fees.

According to the Patent Troll Tracker blog, IP Innovation is a subsidiary of Acacia, which has been aggressively enforcing streaming media patents against small webmasters and others. Acacia has been accused of being a patent troll, which is a company that does not make or sell any products but files aggressive patent lawsuits against those that do.

Coincidentally, Novell in May joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Patent Busting” initiative that aims to invalidate bogus US patents by seeking out evidence of prior art — earlier inventions that preclude patentability. The program was launched in response to companies like Acacia Research, which has filed 213 different patent lawsuits via 36 separate subsidiaries, according to Patent Troll Tracker.

Ironically, in late August Acacia’s Disc Link subsidiary announced a license deal with Novell covering its patents related to portable storage devices with links.

The three US patents in the Linux suit are entitled “User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects.” They were issued in late-1991, early-1995 and mid-1996. The first was initially granted to Xerox and then sold to IP Innovation.

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

Lots of interesting things are happening
with the various efforts to eliminate or counter software vulnerabilities.
The
Software Security Assurance (SwA) State-of-the-Art Report (SOAR)
tries to list what’s going on, especially in things related to the
U.S. government.
As with any such document, it’s incomplete, and it’s only a snapshot
(things keep changing!).
But if you haven’t been following this world, and want to know
“what’s going on”, it’s the best place I know of to start.
Of course, you can also look at sites such as the

U.S. DHS / CERT “build security in” site.

The U.S. National Vulnerability Database
tracks specific vulnerabilities in specific products; they identify each
vulnerability using the unique id defined by
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE).
But if the world is going to prevent these kinds of
vulnerabilities from happening in the future, we need to categorize them
in a way that everyone agrees what the categories are.
Informally, there are lots of ways to categorize them, but their meanings
differ between people.
That’s a real problem when comparing tools; different tools find different
problems, but without agreed-on terminology, it’s hard to even describe
their differences.
MITRE is currently developing a way to categorize all vulnerabilities in
a way that everyone can agree on, called
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE).
The U.S. National Vulnerability Database and MITRE have worked out a
set of CWEs that they will use to
categorize vulnerabilities.
The CWE is still being developed, but at least some common terminology
is getting worked out.

Original post by David A. Wheeler’s Blog and software by Elliott Back

Locating the right open source product just got a hell of lot easier thanks to OpenLogic, which has launched a free website, OLEX, where you can research and download oven-ready open source packages…

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

Red Hat has pulled out of the bag some glowingly healthy financial results, as Linux sales continue to flourish.

Subscriptions to Linux software peaked at $109.2m for the second quarter, up 29% over the same period last year. Overall, the company reported revenues of $127.3m, up 28% on last year and 7% on the previous quarter. But it’s not all good news…

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

My

“Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) FLOSS License Slide”
helps people figure out if the most widely-used FLOSS licenses are compatible
(that is, if you can combine their software to produce new works).
The main body of the PDF text fits all on one page, which can be handy.

My thanks to Olaf Schmidt, who found an error of omission in the
previous version of my “slide”.
He pointed out to me that
the GNU Lessor General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 is even more
compatible with various versions of the GPL than the plain reading of
my “slide” originally noted.
That’s because the LGPL has explicit text noting
that you can switch its license to GPL version 2 or later, and
similarly LGPL version 3 explicitly says that you can also use
GPL version 3 or later.
I fixed this by adding one more arrow to my diagram,
which was enough to capture this.
I also noted that the previous version of the LGPL is version 2.1, not 2
(previous versions of the LGPL exist but are becoming uncommon).
I also added some additional text, so I hope that the LGPL-related text
is even clearer now.

Enjoy!

Original post by David A. Wheeler’s Blog and software by Elliott Back

Microsoft claims that Linux infringes 235 patents, but if it wants to fight it out in a UK court, it had better think again.

Andrew Katz, a solicitor at UK law firm Moorcrofts, points out that those patents simply don’t apply under UK law. Rather than use patents, Europeans take the far more sensible view, in his opinion, of using copyright law to protect intellectual property in software…

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

Monday’s Microsoft ruling is good news for open source and proprietary vendors alike. But Michael Cunningham, executive vice president and general councel at Red Hat, believes the European Commission shouldn’t let up the pressure on the Redmond giant.

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

So, this time, Microsoft wasn’t able to use its brawn to beat up the other kids in the playground, and was made to sit in penance on the ‘naughty step’.

A victory for the anti-monopolists? Well, yes. But exactly how chastened is Microsoft? Has it learnt its lesson, or will it simply look for another way to get round the problem next time?

Original post by Jason Stamper and software by Elliott Back

The eagle-eyed amongst you may have noticed that I referred earlier to Janine Milne as CBR’s new deputy editor.

That’s because today is my last day at CBR/ComputerWire as I’m moving on to the role of enterprise software analyst at The 451 Group. I will be working alongside Raven Zachary and Jay Lyman covering Linux and open source and will be blogging at 451 CAOS Theory.

Original post by Matthew Aslett and software by Elliott Back

Following my recent rant about open source adoption in the UK, and the lack of it, CBR’s new deputy editor, Janine Milne, attended the Westminster eForum debate involving the leading open source advocates in the country as well as a smattering of politicians.

The debate indicated that risk aversion is preventing the UK public sector from exploiting the benefits of open source, but that UK’s position as the open source laggard of Europe is preventing the growth of UK software industry and skills.

Original post by Matthew Aslett and software by Elliott Back