Questions and answers on software patents
What is a software patent?
A patent is a set of exclusionary rights granted by a Government to a patent holder for a limited period of time, usually 20 years. These monopoly rights are granted to patent applicants in exchange for their disclosure of the inventions. Once a patent is granted in a given country, no person may make, use, sell or import/export the claimed invention in that country without the permission of the patent holder. Software patents are different from copyright or trademarks despite together are referred within the collective term of Intellectual Property. GNU Project has a explanation as well.
Who is responsible for taking care of any legal issues in Fedora?
Fedora Project is not a separate legal entity. Red Hat, the primary sponsor of the Fedora Project is the legal entity behind Fedora. Red Hat provides Fedora Project will professional legal assistance including verifying free and open source software license suitability and advising on other legal issues such as trademarks and patents. Refer to the Legal page for more information.
Software patents cover all sorts of things. Why worry about only some of them?
While the threat of software patents is a more global problem, the risk is not uniform. Many of them are not enforced or enforceable because they are too weak or invalidated by prior art. Fedora Project cannot solve the threat of patent issues entirely yet, in part due to the presence of submarine patents. However it strives to reduce the risk of by changing code to workaround patents or removing it where there are patents covering it being enforced actively. This is the case for many of the patent encumbered codecs such as MP3.
If software patents are not recognized in all regions, why can't you distribute Fedora with such software in other regions?
Red Hat is a U.S based organization and U.S does enforce software patents. While Red Hat is actively participating for patent reform to change this situation in U.S, Europe and other places, it cannot ignore the current reality. Software patents are not a U.S specific problem. Fedora is a world wide distribution of free software and Red Hat is globally responsible for it.
Can't you pay the patent license fees for these patent encumbered codecs ?
A codec is a mathematical formula that generally reduces the file size of a video or audio file. Codecs like MP3 or WMV has software patents covering the use of the technology while other codecs such as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis, Dirac and FLAC are open codecs. Fedora includes comprehensive support for the open codecs but is unable to include support for the patent encumbered ones.
Patent licenses are usually granted via payment of royalty based on the number of users. Since Fedora is free and open source software, the effective number of users is essentially unrestricted and patent holders would be unwilling to give a blanket patent license or the royalties would be too high to consider this. Proprietary operating systems like Microsoft Windows include the cost of the patent license as part of the product being sold to the end users. Fedora is not sold commercially and we have no way to recoup the very high expenses. Even assuming that we have the funds to do so, licenses such as GPL require a written patent grant (in regions where software patents are enforced) compatible with royalty free distribution and modification and since this effectively nullifies the effect of a patent, patent holders would be unwilling to do this.
There are free and open software implementations of the codecs. Why don't you include them?
Typically these implementations are free and open source as far as copyright licensing is concerned. However even independent implementations of the codecs are still liable to have patent issues. Unlike copyright which covers a specific implementation only, patents are more monopolistic.
How are some other Linux distributions including such software?
There are different reasons:
- Some of them include proprietary software and/or charging users for their product which includes the cost of licensing patents. Fedora is not a commercial product.
- They are based on a region where software patents are not recognized and might be able to include such software but they will not be able to distribute it other places like within U.S. Red Hat is a U.S based entity and cannot do this.
- They are willing to deal with the risk somehow. In some cases, it is because they are not backed by a large profitable public organization like Red Hat.
Can't you convert a patent encumbered codec to a open codec?
Fedora cannot include the decoders necessary to do this since those are patent encumbered as well. Although users might be able to do this, converting from one format to another typically results in a visible loss of quality. The only long term viable method is to encourage the creation of content in open formats and Fedora and Red Hat actively encourage and participate in such activities.
How Fedora works against software patents
- Fedora sponsors development of free, not patented encumbered open formats
In support of Free Culture, the open web and to reduce the hold of proprietary and patent encumbered codecs, Red Hat has been sponsoring improvements on the open Ogg Theora video codec implementation codenamed Thusnelda via Christopher Montgomery (xiphmont), who created the format and work has resulted in drastic improvements to the codec.
- Fedora uses free, non-patented, open formats by default that anyone can implement, use, and view without licenses.
Rather than MP3, use Ogg Vorbis. Rather than Windows Media, use Ogg Theora. Rather than Microsoft Office Open XML, use Open Document format documents, or even PDF.
- Fedora works to fight the spread of software patents.
Fedora supports the same patent promise as Red Hat . Through Red Hat, we support legislation to limit the scope of software patents via organizations such as Open Invention Network which has Red Hat as one of the founding members (with a goal of eliminating their impact entirely), and collaborate with organizations such as FFII and the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
The problem with proprietary and patent encumbered media formats
Imagine sitting down to your e-mail. Your sister has sent you some pictures of your niece. However, when you go to look at them, all you see is:
|I'm sorry, you need Frobozz Viewer 3.0 to view this file. It's only $19.99, please have your credit card ready.|
Later, you go to view your mail on a public computer at the local library. And you get the same dialog box on their computer.
That is the reality for any sound, image, or document format that is encumbered by software patents that require licensing - any application that wishes to view, play, or create them requires paying the patent holders a fee. Normally, software and hardware vendors include this support, but they pass the costs directly onto the consumers in the cost of their software or hardware. For every copy of Microsoft Windows that you buy, or every DVD player that is sold, a portion of that cost goes directly to pay patent licenses; in fact, for DVD players, it can be over a quarter of the final cost . And, since that patent license applies to every copy in use, it's one of the reasons why you are not allowed to freely copy and redistribute software such as Microsoft Windows.
Fedora, however, has a public promise to always be freely redistributable by anyone. That is why Fedora cannot include support for patented media formats - it would break this redistribution promise. This means that, out of the box, you can't directly play media files such as Windows Media, MPEG-4 video, or MP3 audio. Fedora supports open media formats such as Ogg Vorbis and Theora , which are freely implementable and usable by anyone without a patent license.
But you already have all these files you want to play ...
The Fedora Project realizes there are large amounts of media available in patented formats that you want to view or play. Companies like Fluendo provide software to play such formats , legal for use in any location but they have to pay for patent licenses and therefore not freely available.
If you are in a location where these patents do not apply, you may have other options as well. However given a choice, you should always opt to use free and non-patented open formats which often provide better quality.
What is bad about patented formats?
Even if you are willing to pay for patent licenses, there are many things to consider.
- No guarantee that your consumers actually will be able to read the data you're trying to produce. If you've reached this page, you've already experienced this - by producing media in a patented format, you automatically limit your audience to whatever platforms the patent holder has licensed their software to.
- No guarantee of being able to access your data forever. If you're using some software to view a patented media format, what happens if that software vendor goes out of business, or refuses to port their software to newer systems? You no longer have access to your data.
Note that this isn't even restricted to patented media formats - the same applies to popular proprietary formats used for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, etc.