| |||||||||||||
RMS discussed this at the GPLv3 launchRMS discussed this at the GPLv3 launchPosted Apr 6, 2006 21:41 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: RMS discussed this at the GPLv3 launch by JoeBuck Parent article: Fedora and MP3
I'd cut him a little slack since that pronouncement was an unplanned interuption of a presentation by someone else, but yes, the patent licence could not render the software non-free in a jurisdiction which doesn't have legal software patenting.
The other thing is that I haven't read Fluendo's patent licence, and I would be surprised if it did allow distribution as free software - so that criticism might need checking.
If the patent grant doesn't apply to derivative works, then that's not good. That means buyers of Fluendo's product are ok, but when the execute their redistribution rights they are putting the recipient in a danger which they themselves have decided is unbearable.
(Log in to post comments)
Where to draw the line is clear Posted Apr 7, 2006 1:58 UTC (Fri) by wtogami (subscriber, #32325) [Link] If you get a legally binding, written, perpetual, and irrevocable royalty free grant for any Free and Open Source Software to use a particular patent, then it is compatible with the GPL and legal in all jurisdictions. Anything less than such a written promise is probably not compatible with the GPL and feasible for Fedora.
|
|||||||||||||