Puppy Ripped off by Google Developer??

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
dk60902
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2010, 22:34
Location: In front of my computer

#31 Post by dk60902 »

Not to change the topic, but I always liked the concept of the Chromebooks. Fast booting, always up to date, and the $249 looks like it has decent hardware. Puppy is more versatile, and loading it onto small quality laptop would give a lot of the same capabilities/qualities of a Chromebook, as long as Chromium browser is installed. In addition, one can dual boot with other OS's. I wish I could get Chrome remote desktop to work on Chromium browser in Puppy.
HP Pavilion Mini Pentium 1.7 GHz Dual Core 12 GB RAM 120 GB SSD Linux Lite 3.8 64-bit w/ Kensington Slimblade Trackball
Bionic8.0 Xenial64 Tahr64 USB frugal install
Samsung Chromebook Plus
LG V20 LG Xpression Plus Huawei Ascend XT2

topaz
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu 14 Dec 2006, 20:18
Location: Northumberland UK

#32 Post by topaz »

Hi
Guys
This thread has missed the whole very basic issue.
ANY thing which is built withthe linux kernal as a base cannot have any patent UNLESS that code was develpoed for a none linux system.
Google knows its on bad ground with the google OS and the android patents as they are in the same position as microsoft.

Basicaly google has used the Linux Kernal and have not stayed within the spirit of the Linux ethos.

I will not use google OS because of this very basic issue.

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#33 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
Actually, that`s not the case..
Firstly, he did not patent Puppy, Linux, or any Linux code..
He patented the idea of a "web-centric OS"..
However, Android for example, is based on the Linux kernel..
Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does...
What about the software?
OK.. Lets say I write the code from scratch..
If I don`t incorporate any code released under the GPL, even though my code runs on the Linux kernel, I dont have to release it under the GPL.. I then only have to provide the kernel sources, nothing more..
Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work"
As long as you "provide access to the source code" you sure can..
You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control"
or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
So if you write YOUR OWN ORIGINAL code in C, just because it runs on the Linux kernel, does not mean you have to release it GPL.. "Open Source" isnt forced upon you.
Just because it is "The right thing to do" doesnt mean you are bound to do it..
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!

Puppy since 2.15CE...

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#34 Post by darkcity »

Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does... ...
The name and image are trademarks, they do not apply to the technology used. You could patent mobile OS technology as long as it didn't use ideas/code substantially taken from ideas/code already under GPL
... Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work" ...
You are right you could sell GPL code, but you couldn't patent it. Unless the idea/code was substantially different - like in your radar example.

topaz
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu 14 Dec 2006, 20:18
Location: Northumberland UK

#35 Post by topaz »

Hi
You did not read my post properly
The words " linux kernal as a base" are the operative words. Google cannot patent any code in a linux distro, that been proven in EU law but not in USA law. But yes the idea and name can be patented. :)

wjaguar
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 14:16

#36 Post by wjaguar »

puppyluvr wrote:You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control" or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
It is not that simple. GPL version 3 spells this out in section 11:

A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.


And this is precisely why mtPaint is "GPL 3 or later".

But the Linux kernel is licensed under GPL version 2, which does not explicitly preclude some downstream contributor, or distributor, from trying to spring some patent trap on others.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

Re: Puppy Ripped off by Google Developer??

#37 Post by greengeek »

jeff-nelson wrote:PS - Now if you want a piece of the patent bonus that Google paid me for this project... I'll buy you half a beer sometime and we'll call it even.
Sounds like your hourly rate was pretty crappy :-)
So who actually "owns" the patent? I presume Google owns it even though you did the groundwork?

This seems to be the same patent technosaurus mentioned last year:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 7&start=85
He mentions a discussion on Slashdot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/08/10 ... -os-patent
(a lot of the embedded comments further down that thread are very interesting, particularly the ones about LTSP)

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#38 Post by greengeek »

You know, it's really amazing how some people can spin the BS when they want to muddy the waters. Check out this link:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
He implies that he is going to reveal the origins of ChromeOS, then comes out with this cleverly twisted piece of "logic":
So if Nelson's project wasn't Chrome OS's father, where did it come from? Originally, it seems to have started with Ubuntu Linux. Chrome OS was released in November 2009 and the news quickly came out that Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, had helped build Chrome OS.

In a Canonical blog posting, Chris Kenyon, then Canonical's VP of OEM Services, wrote, "Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract. In our discussions, Sundar Pichai [Google's senior vice president of Chrome] and Linus Upson [Google's VP of engineering for Chrome] made it clear that they want, wherever feasible, to build on existing components and tools from the open-source community without unnecessary re-invention."

So, Chrome OS today is based on Ubuntu? Well, no... it's not. The first builds of Chrome OS had Ubuntu as its foundation, but it's changed over the years. In February 2010, Chrome OS started switching its foundation Linux distribution from Ubuntu to the older, and more obscure, Gentoo Linux.
Nicely done - somehow the "origins" of ChromeOS are a 2010 switch to Gentoo????

Knowing what ChromeOS is built on today is a totally different thing to identifying it's origins.

I really hate to see people mask the creative genius that initially gives birth to great solutions. Give credit where credit is due I reckon.

User avatar
jeff-nelson
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

#39 Post by jeff-nelson »

You know, it's really amazing how some people can spin the BS when they want to muddy the waters. Check out this link:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
I was disappointed with that article as well. He appears to have just restated parts of the G+ thread and gotten an additional quote from an anonymous source, presumably also Peter Kasting.

I wrote this response, although I'm not sure ZD is going to publish it.

http://blog.jeff-nelson.com/2013/03/res ... ols-i.html

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself :)

User avatar
jeff-nelson
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

GPL patent issues

#40 Post by jeff-nelson »

I notice you guys are going back and forth talking about GPL and patent issues earlier in the thread. I am not aware of any of those issues.

Google hired one of the best patent law firms in Silicon Valley to file this patent, so presumably they would have worked out any of those issues prior to filing the patent.

topaz
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu 14 Dec 2006, 20:18
Location: Northumberland UK

#41 Post by topaz »

Hi
jeff Nielson
The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.

Its as basic as that.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#42 Post by greengeek »

jeff-nelson wrote:Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself :)
Wouldn't Guppy be covered by a licence that required the source etc to be made available? (Not that I really know anything useful about GPL and Linux licensing etc...)

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#43 Post by amigo »

I don't see how that patent proves anything about Puppy. It appears to claims rights to a technology for using a sort of pre-bootloader to download and combine filesystem images and then let the bootloader boot the result. No one anywhere is doing such a thing -nor is there really any need to. It's straightforward to boot a kernel and an initrd which will do the same steps -it's just being done by userspace tools(in the initrd) instead of being done by the pre-bootloader. We already have an endless variety of such systems -and neither GoogleOS, ChromeOS, Guppy or Puppy are doing anything original with their implementations.

You guys are fussing over getting credit for something which you did not invent. Do you suppose that it was just an accident that the conecepts of ramdisk, intial-ramdisk and initramfs were invented -that the inventor had no idea what to do with such a thing and never even tested any ideas? You want credit for running from RAM? Then, Peter Anvin might have something to say.

User avatar
jeff-nelson
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

#44 Post by jeff-nelson »

Wouldn't Guppy be covered by a licence that required the source etc to be made available? (Not that I really know anything useful about GPL and Linux licensing etc...)
Guppy was derived heavily from Puppy, so I think that means its automatically GPL and source would have to be provided.

I'm just hoping eventually some part of it makes it out of Google, even if just screencaps, so that the lineage of Chrome OS can be more clearly established.

User avatar
jeff-nelson
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
Contact:

#45 Post by jeff-nelson »

The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.
Google's record of supporting the open source community, both with code and cash, is fairly exemplary.

No doubt, we need patent reform as a whole in the software industry. I specifically question the 20 year term of patents, since this industry has product life cycles that often last 1-2 years at most. Holding a patent for 20 years in the software industry is as good as holding a patent, forever.

Until reform happens, companies have to work within the current system.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#46 Post by greengeek »

amigo wrote:You guys are fussing over getting credit for something which you did not invent.
Seems to me that Jeff is not claiming that he "invented" the basic bootloader stuff, just that some other people are not being straightforward in allowing credit for the creative input and development he undertook, which contributed to the lineage of ChromeOS.

Actually, they seem to be going further than that - they seem to be actively DENYING any developmental links. Whether that is through ignorance, or a deliberate desire to obfuscate, doesn't matter I guess. It still looks to me like ChromeOS offers a debt of gratitude to Puppy :-)

Caneri
Posts: 1513
Joined: Tue 04 Sep 2007, 13:23
Location: Canada

#47 Post by Caneri »

@jeff-nelson,

I'm still wondering if Google will offer a free, small dedicated server for us, the little Puppy users.

I will start with admin and pass it to a qualified admin at your request so no worries about that (managed server would be nice as I'm kinda' dumb about the finer points).

Barry doesn't need the space (I think..didn't ask him) but small developers for Puppy will be well served ..so to speak.

Eric
EDIT:
Google's record of supporting the open source community, both with code and cash, is fairly exemplary
I tend to agree to the behest of paranoids.
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#48 Post by Q5sys »

jeff-nelson wrote:
You know, it's really amazing how some people can spin the BS when they want to muddy the waters. Check out this link:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
I was disappointed with that article as well. He appears to have just restated parts of the G+ thread and gotten an additional quote from an anonymous source, presumably also Peter Kasting.

I wrote this response, although I'm not sure ZD is going to publish it.

http://blog.jeff-nelson.com/2013/03/res ... ols-i.html

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself :)
Since Peter has confirmed your email that you sent on google's intranet and your discussion regarding Guppy, could someone file an GPL request for Guppy to Google? Since derivative use is covered under GPL, Google should have some mechanism in place for releasing it... shouldnt they? I can even understand if they dont release the entire thing, but surely there must be parts of it they could. And considering Google is 'claiming' that they didnt use Guppy at all, and that it has nothing to do with Chrome OS... there should be nothing holding them back. Trade secret would only apply if they are actively using components you put into Guppy for ChromeOS. Otherwise all non ChromeOS releated code should not be covered under trade secret.

jeff-nelson wrote:I notice you guys are going back and forth talking about GPL and patent issues earlier in the thread. I am not aware of any of those issues.

Google hired one of the best patent law firms in Silicon Valley to file this patent, so presumably they would have worked out any of those issues prior to filing the patent.
In my days working with corporate america, I've learned one thing about Corporate attorneys, its not about right and wrong. It's about who can afford to last the longest in court. If Apple can patent Rectangular phones with rounded edges, as an 'original idea'... I have no faith at all in an attorney's ability to do whats 'right' and not instead just do whats best for the companies bottom line, no matter how shady it is. Many years back I was in a tussle with IBM over an encryption algorithm I attempted to patent, and although my patent was filed 14 months before theirs, they ended up winning the patent, simply because they could afford better attorneys than I was able. (IBM's firm was even polite enough to explain to me during the process that there was no way I'd win, since they could out spend me.)
So my faith in Patent Attorney's virtue... is very minimal.

jeff-nelson wrote:
Wouldn't Guppy be covered by a licence that required the source etc to be made available? (Not that I really know anything useful about GPL and Linux licensing etc...)
Guppy was derived heavily from Puppy, so I think that means its automatically GPL and source would have to be provided.

I'm just hoping eventually some part of it makes it out of Google, even if just screencaps, so that the lineage of Chrome OS can be more clearly established.
Again, could someone request that through the GPL angle? Is this the sort of thing that would be best done by you... or someone else? If it needs a public figure outside of google and you (since you were an employee); I'll gladly step up and file whatever paperwork is needed.
jeff-nelson wrote:
The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.
Google's record of supporting the open source community, both with code and cash, is fairly exemplary.

No doubt, we need patent reform as a whole in the software industry. I specifically question the 20 year term of patents, since this industry has product life cycles that often last 1-2 years at most. Holding a patent for 20 years in the software industry is as good as holding a patent, forever.

Until reform happens, companies have to work within the current system.
Google has been very supportive of the open source community, but that's also because it helps their bottom line. As with any company, the decision over priorities comes down to the bottom line vs. altruism. Sometimes altruism will win, sometimes it will not.

Caneri
Posts: 1513
Joined: Tue 04 Sep 2007, 13:23
Location: Canada

#49 Post by Caneri »

In my days working with corporate america, I've learned one thing about Corporate attorneys, its not about right and wrong. It's about who can afford to last the longest in court.
In my day...lawyers are in court to win at all costs..damnation to the other guy.

This is the way things work as lawyers are paid to win...nothing else...thus the shit we are in now...Eric

Bottom line is cash in hand..corporates understand this...bottom line methinks

I still want a dedicated server for us from Google..fair is fair..E
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]

Caneri
Posts: 1513
Joined: Tue 04 Sep 2007, 13:23
Location: Canada

#50 Post by Caneri »

I will point the puppylinux.ca/asia domain to a Google server at any time.

If anyone thinks the security is at risk...Google will be mostly safe....privacy was gone years ago so don't sweat the small stuff you see...development is more important as this is public anyway..Eric

EDIT:

For some reason I can't logout...so after this I remain buggered..ta
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]

Post Reply