Gustavo Seabra wrote: > There was a known bug in OO.o calc that has apparently been fixed in > upstream. However, it seems like RedHat *decided* that the bug should > be kept broken in redhat releases, based on unclear "Intelectual > Property" claims. It was then set as "closed", but the bug is still > there: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=146883 > > I have little law knowlegde, but I can't imagine how breaking an OPEN > SOURCE software can protect redhat from IP claims, and they don't give > enough information in their replies to explain it. I wonder if anyone > on this list with more experience could take a look at the bugzilla > dicussion and give us some extra light about what they mean. No more experience, but I suspect I can guess. Patents. It can't be copyright (otherwise the code could be re-written), it can't be trade secrets any more (it *is* public: there's no more damage to be done), and it certainly can't be trademarks. That leaves patents. Under the US patent system, if you know of a third party patent, believe it to be invalid, but the courts disagree, you are liable for triple damages. See http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1752687,00.asp , for example. However, Red Hat have no liability to tell anyone else about the claim: that's the patent owner's responsibility. I assume Red Hat are aware of a possible patent claim. Possibly the patent owner's lawyers sent them a letter. I assume, too, that Red Hat chose not to litigate on it. We'd have heard. And there are too many software patents out there for Red Hat, single handedly, to fight them all. Red Hat tend to be cautious about legal issues. So we don't have mp3 support or Mono. We have a patched OpenSSH ( http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg00217.html and thread ). So I'm not surprised at them taking out other features due to legal concerns. Having done so, should they tell the rest of us? "The rest of us" would almost certainly include other distributors of OpenOffice, and plenty of users. If Red Hat did explain the patent problems, then those others would be aware of the patent, and potentially face triple damages, too. If I'm right, Red Hat employees shouldn't publicly confirm it! Can we take the anti-software patent rhetoric as read? James. -- E-mail address: james | The camel has a single hump; @westexe.demon.co.uk | The dromedary two; | Or else the other way around. | I'm never sure. Are you? -- Ogden Nash
