Restrictions for use [LWN.net]

Restrictions for use

Posted Jan 16, 2006 19:13 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104)
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

The "patent retaliation clause" is not as strong as it looks. GPLv3 states explicitly that it's not a contact and that it doesn't need to be accepted to use the program. Therefore, the "patent retaliation clause" would only affect the ability to use the software by those who need to accept GPL for some other reason, such as the ability to distribute modified software.

I think FSF did a great job with GPLv3. They resisted the temptation to add more restrictions to the license. On the other hand, they spelled the intentions of the license very clearly and strongly.

Although nobody is required to accept GPLv3 to use the software, I think large proprietary software houses would not be tempted to use GPLv3 covered software in violation of the license. Think of a PR disaster it would be if a large company was found using non-licensed software clearly in violation of the intentions of the copyright holders! They would look like "pirates" to the general public.

(Log in to post comments)

Restrictions for use

Posted Jan 16, 2006 19:21 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

GPLv3 states explicitly that it's not a contact and that it doesn't need to be accepted to use the program. Therefore, the "patent retaliation clause" would only affect the ability to use the software by those who need to accept GPL for some other reason, such as the ability to distribute modified software.

Note, however, that downloading the software over the internet or copying from one computer to another (internal distribution) still require permission or licensing from the copyright holder, thus the patent retaliation clause may in effect impose substantial restrictions on an entity's further use of the program. It doesn't affect any use that does not involve copying the program.

Restrictions for use

Posted Jan 17, 2006 9:02 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Note that copying a program from disc to DRAM and from DRAM to processor
cache *is* copying, technically speaking. While some countries have
'fair use' provisions in their copyright legislation (or case law),
others do not. A case can be made that without the implicit licence to
copy given by permission to 'use' a program, running it actually is
covered by copyright law.

Thus withdrawing permission to use a program is something a copyright
holder can effectively do in some jurisdictions. Copyright law can also
compel you to *destroy* unauthorised copies.

The same applies to the copies made of a web page when you read it: An
implicit permission to make a copy is granted by the server when you ask
for a copy. Theoretically this permission to copy could be withdrawn by
the copyright holder.

Restrictions for use

Posted Jan 17, 2006 15:19 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If you get too technical, you'll also note that merely the act of disposing of the copyrighted material involves (oh no!) generating yet another temporary copy.

Not to mention that deleting a file does not actually remove its content from the storage. You can't tell exactly when nothing will be left of the content.

Restrictions for use

Posted Jan 20, 2006 1:54 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I think it's still highly speculative that copying code from disk to memory requires a license from the copyright holder. I've heard of rulings like this, but they seem pretty ignorant and I don't think they will hold up.

I compare this kind of copying to copying a book onto my retina so that I can read it (you cannot read a book in the traditional way without causing an image of each page to appear on your retina).

ISTR some distinction about copying into fixed form vs ephemeral form, and that could easily apply to a DRAM copy, and even to a disk cache copy or local filesystem copy.