The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.
If whatever company that is suing on patent grounds is also producing software (like this current case), then they are not a patent troll by the most common definition of the term but just plain aholes.
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.*
(this article is referenced: Alexander Poltorak. "On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief"., ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006)
Just being a jerk with a patent dosen't make you a patent troll.
Physician, heal thyself.
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
When I say patent troll, I mean someone using patents to delay innovation instead of using them to encourage innovation (as they were intended). In this case, there's clear prior art and they are suing after the company responsible was acquired by Red Hat. I'm not going to accept that someone is not a patent troll if they happen to have an application or framework that, e.g., redirects users to a online store for purchase of the full version of an app after tapping a link. Everyone in the field, the companies starting the lawsuits included, know that these patents should not have been issued.
As someone who gets paid for developing software that can be freely shared, I'm particularly interested.
Apple, as an enterprise, has been very successful by building a profitable operating system platform and channeling those profits back in to both hardware and software engineering. That kind of enterprise would not exist if Apple's software could be used by anyone for anything.
Any hardware vendor of any consequence could use that as they see fit, resulting in a stew of mis-matched standards and rampant confusion, not unlike the Android tablet market. While there are good products in this space, they are often difficult to differentiate from superficially similar yet technically inferior alternatives. This is not helping people on the whole.
Personally I like the choice between a premium product which is commercialized and free, open-source alternatives that are, for many applications, good enough. I would not want a market that's locked in to one model at the expense of the other.
The only reason patents exist is to "promote the science and the useful arts", and it seems to be theres a growing body of evidence that this goal is not being achieved (at least, in the field of software - may be its working great for the manufacturing/pharma industries).
This is one of the important differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Seems like Twin Peaks could resolve this by just releasing the source code to their version of mount. Maybe Red Hat will be able to get damages out of it, but if Twin Peaks releases the code in a timely fashion, I doubt Red Hat will be able to get an injunction against their product sales. (IANAL.) Meanwhile, the patent suit goes on.
At worst, all they have to do is download a new copy of mount and presto, they have a new license.
[err, that's for gpl2. gpl3 has a more complicated termination procedure.]
ok, so in light of gpl3, they just need to go back and get a gpl2 copy of mount. It's not like mount has changed all that much, I'm sure the 2007 version will suffice. Or they could just write their own. How many lines of code are we talking about here?
That is the argument I am making.
Fighting GPL violations is the "good" side, patent trolling the "bad".
That paragraph actually makes it sound scary to even use open source software when they actually mean only GPL'ed software and that too only when modified and distributed/sold.
No, you have to comply with the GPL regardless of whether you've modified the source that you're distributing. (As in this case: I'd be surprised if Twin Peaks modified mount -- I don't see why they'd need to.)
There's a lot of open source code that isn't GPL. Many licenses don't require the code to be distributed, even if it's changed.
The sentence from the article makes it sound like all open source code is GPL.
Sorry, this just bugged me.
No, "app" is short for "application". The term "killer app" has been around long before there was such a thing as a smartphone.
Stop being bothered by such trivial matters, moreso when you don't know what you're talking about.
Put another way, if nobody is getting your point, perhaps the problem isn't with the audience :)
(I am, however, going to steal that "offense is taken, not given" line for future (ab)use)
And if everyone followed that principle, society would never change. The perfect fourth would still sound dissonant, rape victims would be under even more pressure to keep the crime secret, etc.
Wikipedia uses the term "utility" to refer to programs like mount, although again, just call it a program and be done with it.
(this is just a general remark, not a reply)