From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263953AbTLUTnQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:43:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263971AbTLUTnQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:43:16 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:52107 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263953AbTLUTnO (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:43:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:40:40 -0500 To: jw schultz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not? Message-ID: <20031221194040.GG30397@gnu.org> References: <20031218231137.GA13652@gnu.org> <20031221012504.GB21001@pegasys.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031221012504.GB21001@pegasys.ws> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Lennert Buytenhek Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 05:25:04PM -0800, jw schultz wrote: > > What am I to do? Ignore the patent? Or should I refrain from submitting > > the patch I wrote, and look for an unencumbered algorithm instead? > > This whole thing seems strange to me. > > Why do you even know the algorithm is patented? And if you > knew it was, why implement it? If you implemented it and > then did a search you poisoned yourself. I implemented the algorithm, and before submitting it, I asked the authors of the paper I used to implement the algorithm what the patent status of this algorithm is. The paper doesn't say anything about any patents (in retrospect, obviously it wouldn't.) > I've not poked around in the routing code but it seems to me > that the kernel would need a longest-prefix match algorithm > already so you shouldn't have to look far for one. There is one already, and it's suboptimal, to say it mildly. > As for asking the patent holder for a license. If the > patent were owned by a network hardware company i cannot see > them licensing it because the speed of their equipment is > their competitive advantage. But you indicated the the > patent is not owned by the HW company but exclusively > licensed. An existing exclusive license would preclude > FLOSS being granted a license and a gratis sublicense would > likely violate the existing license. I asked this question on l-k because there seem to be many 'common' techniques in wide use which have US patents covering them. Considering the circumstances, yes, licensing is probably out of the question. > It would be completely OT to wonder at what point source > code crossed the line of expressing information of public > record into being a patent violation. I wouldn't be surprised if publishing source code implementing a patented algorithm would itself be considered as a patent violation (I'm not saying that it would make sense to me though.) I think this l-k thread was sufficiently instructive for me to decide that I won't be publishing my implementation of this algorithm, and I'll just wait until another (free) LPM algorithm pops up. --L