Jason :

@Jo,
It is a more of a “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing with Adobe, no doubt.
If two giants like Adobe and Microsoft decide that who can Free up the most stuff wins, I’ll surely count that as a good development!

It’s hard to view Adobe as a friend, though. As an AMD64 user for many years, I feel rather more abused by them.

It is a more of a “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing with Adobe, no doubt.

If two giants like Adobe and Microsoft decide that who can Free up the most stuff wins, I’ll surely count that as a good development!

Oh damnit, that reminds me, I forgot to include one detail of the difference between SL1 and SL2+. SL2+ includes a widget toolkit (SL1 requires all UIs to be hand-made). This is already a partially completed problem for Moonlight, as Microsoft have released their implementation of the toolkit under their FSF-and-OSI-and-DFSG-Free Ms-PL license (which includes explicit patent grants right in the license).

Okay, now I’ve caught myself up…

I find it vaguely amusing that both entrants in the RIA space are essentially trying to argue their corner with Freeness, whilst still being highly controlling, proprietary companies. I think it would be VERY foolish for people to see Adobe as some kind of “ally” in this – moreso than Microsoft – when neither company really has anyone’s interests at heart but their own. Sadly, until the h.264/Theora farce surrounding is resolved properly, I simply can’t see JS/SVG/Video as a viable competitor in most cases.

Patent law is complex, but this is my understanding and is why the FSF argues for a positive patent grant.

For example, here is the UK law:

Where an order is made under section 37 above that a patent shall be transferred from any person or persons (the old proprietor or proprietors) to one or more persons (whether or not including an old proprietor), then, except in a case falling within subsection (2) below, any licences or other rights granted or created by the old proprietor or proprietors shall, subject to section 33 above and to the provisions of the order, continue in force and be treated as granted by the person or persons to whom the patent is ordered to be transferred (the new proprietor or proprietors).

Here is similar law from Latvia:

(4) The transfer of a patent to another person (Section 51) and the grant of a licence (Section 52) shall not affect the licences that have been granted previously to third persons.

I chose those two because they are the simplest to find and understand with a Google search and the time I have on hand. Hooray for Dr. Doom keeping Latvia’s laws simple!

In the U.S., it is my understanding that cases like TransCorp v. ETC come closer to legally equating the “Covenant not to sue” with a “real” patent license, note the analysis:

This was a question of significant importance, because a “covenant not to sue” was traditionally viewed as a contractual
commitment not to sue. This is contrasted with a “patent license,” which was viewed interchangeably as either an
authorization under the patent or a freedom from suit under the patent. And because the former was considered a
personal commitment, rather than an authorization under the patent, the benefits of a covenant not to sue were not
believed to extend to third parties.
Given this distinction, a covenant not to sue was often used in lieu of a patent license, particularly where a patent owner
wished to secure peace with one party while limiting the benefits afforded to that party’s customers or vendors. A common
example is the covenant not to sue granted to eliminate standing in a declaratory judgment action for invalidity or noninfringement
of the covenanted patent. Another example is in the licensing context, where the patentee provides a license
for one field of activity while providing a limited covenant in another field. In both cases, the patent owner uses a covenant
not to sue, rather than a license, in order to reserve its patent infringement remedies against unlicensed use by third
parties, while securing peace with others.

Of course, if I include all that crap when making the post, it becomes a jumble of international references and court cases.

If I got this (or anything like it) wrong, it is because I am not a patent lawyer, and patent law is very complex. It is not because I am dishonest.

By releasing OSMF under MPL 1.1, Adobe is granting certain patent rights to this code. Adobe may seek patents for innovations in OSMF to defend its technologies against patent assertions.

Microsoft could easily sell off one patent to any patent troll company to attack Linux with – then what?

What precisely in the Adobe verbage prevents the exact same thing from being possible? It’s not like Adobe is not a litigious company (ref: Sklarov and more). If you’re going to claim painting an even brush, you could make a minor attempt to do so.