| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSFSome GPLv3 clarifications from the FSFPosted Sep 26, 2006 20:29 UTC (Tue) by sveinrn (guest, #2827)In reply to: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF by drag Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
I don't think my example is far-fetched.
We have one large application suite where I work where the main application is proprietary software, but much of the functionality we need and use come as stand-alone programs that are called from the main application without being linked against it or any of its libraries. Many of these "modules" are free software with none or only minor modifications.
One of those "modules" _could_ have come from GPLv3-software that IBM distributed as part of a Linux-distribution. It could also have been heavily "improved". And the result would be that, as long as the original program as distributed by IBM is covered by IBM's patents and as long as I don't link the program against any non-GPL libraries, my application suite would appear to have the functionality covered by IBM's patents, but still being protected by the GPL.
It would of course be very nice if the patents "leak" away in this manner. But I don't think IBM would like it...
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||