| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
This is not just a GPL issueThis is not just a GPL issuePosted Jan 2, 2003 20:53 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: On the licensing of software patents
"Free implementations of such standards can be distributed under BSD-style licenses, so it remains possible to implement the standard in free software." You're missing the point, I'm afraid. In fact, such use-restricted standards cannot be implemented as free or open-source software under any license, BSD or GPL or otherwise. A field-of-use restriction would conflict with both the FSF's Free Software definition and the OSI's Open Source definition. The GPL issue is a red herring. Yes, the GPL is also legally incompatible with such a patent, whereas (e.g.) BSD is not. BSD code can also be incorporated into proprietary software, but this doesn't make MS part of the free software world because it uses some BSD code! What matters here is what we want, not what we are legally compelled to do. If you care about free (as in speech) software, you're out of luck with such patented standards. The "free enough" crowd strikes again. (As a concrete example, field-of-use restrictions could lead to a legal minefield, depending on how they are worded, because W3C standards have a broad influence beyond their ostensible field of web clients and servers.)
(Log in to post comments)
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 3, 2003 5:37 UTC (Fri) by ksmathers (guest, #2353) [Link] It may be a problem for software that is trying to comply with the open source definition, but (my IP lawyer tells me) that it is not a problem for GPL. GPL is silent on the issue of patents. It does state that any license under which the software is distributed must be at least as free as the GPL, but that doesn't inherently restrict GPL'd software from implementing patented algorithms. Unlike copyright, software patents are not recognized worldwide, must be filed separately in each country where the ideas are to be protected. GPL in my opinion correctly ignores these different interpretations and says only that the source code must be freely distributable under no more restrictive conditions..., etc.Since one is a restriction on copying, and the other is a restriction on use, they arguably are non-overlapping concerns. A free implementation of a protected idea should be perfectly compatible with GPL.
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 6, 2003 0:00 UTC (Mon) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] The point is that it may make it impossible, or difficult, to distribute and use GPL'd software in practice.Software patents are a terrible problem for the industry as a whole, and for free software in particular. (See for example Phil Karn's comments: <http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/patents/patents.html>) A supposed open standards body has no business encouraging their further use, or their incorporation into standards.
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 16, 2003 14:24 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Not so.Let's invent an example to make this clearer. Suppose a web standard is introduced that involves a patented algorithm for encrypting information in transit. Company C owns the patent, but agrees to license the patent royalty-free for use on the web. Hacker H1 writes a program that implements the algorithm in a browser plugin and publishes it under the GPL. User U1 uses this plugin to access a secure website. So far, no one has broken the law. U1 used the algorithm within the terms of the patent. Now, Hacker H2 modifies H1's program to encrypt traffic between a database client and server. He releases his program under the GPL. U2 uses H2's program to access databases securely.
I suspect that either H2 or U2 has broken the law.
However, that does not change the fact that the
original article got it wrong. LWN wrote:
This is important. If I am write then I hope that LWN.NET will publish
a correction at some point. Otherwise, someone please correct me.
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 16, 2003 14:39 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] "The GPL disallows the introduction of restrictions *into the copyright license*, but says nothing about restrictions which may exist independently of that license."What I wrote is based on section 7 of the GPL:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. The GPL disallows restrictions on derived works. Field of use restrictions are a restriction on derived works. I believe that what I wrote is correct.
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 16, 2003 22:24 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Hmm.> For example, if a patent license would not permit You are right that the GPL does say something about But I maintain my disagreement ... for now. The way I read it, The crucial question is: DO the conditions imposed by You say that "the GPL disallows restrictions on derived works" However, I think that there is a slip in the reasoning here. Regards,
This is not just a GPL issue Posted Jan 16, 2003 22:45 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Just thought it might be useful to add a link to a postingby Bruce Perens on this subject in debian-devel mailing list. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=debian-user&m=104138016327196&w=2 He doesn't see a problem with GPL implementations of
|
|
||||||||||||