| |||||||||||
Novell is behind at this pointNovell is behind at this pointPosted Jan 11, 2005 19:48 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626)In reply to: Novell is behind at this point by JoeBuck Parent article: IBM frees 500 patents
Isn't there a case that, if Novell distributes
(Log in to post comments)
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 20:18 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] No, that part means it only covers GPLed software. However JoeBuck failed tomention that Novell also promised to use their patents to protect open source projects from outside patent claims.
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 11, 2005 21:34 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] As I read Novell's patent policy, they've only pledged to defend open source software that they have developed (e.g. Ximian Evolution), or that they market, sell, or support.Just the same, the actions of Novell, IBM, and Red Hat are helpful, and are likely to dissuade large software companies from attacking Linux or GNU (because they are vulnerable to a counterattack). The biggest vulnerability may come from a lawyers-only company that somehow owns an important patent (fortunately, SCO doesn't have any significant patents).
Novell is behind at this point Posted Jan 12, 2005 8:06 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] "Isn't there a case that, if Novell distributes any GPL-d code that its patents cover, then according to the GPL, Novell has given a grant to these patents to anyone who develops GPL-d code?"
This is inherent in the GPL. If you release software as GPL (ie you are *both* the copyright owner *and* the patent owner), the patents clause and the redistribution clause in the GPL together effectively turn the GPL into a patent licence. This is *automatic*.
And if you are not the copyright owner, but distribute code that implements your patent, you get caught by pretty much the same logic.
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||