| |||||||||||||
Patent threats?!Patent threats?!Posted Jul 20, 2009 17:46 UTC (Mon) by davi (guest, #18853)In reply to: Patent threats?! by drag Parent article: Microsoft contributes Hyper-V drivers to the kernel
> > Unfortunately all that patch and the Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 in fact, not GPLv3. So it is because it is not protected against patent attacks.
> > GPLv2 patent licensing is 'implicant', not 'explicit' like it is under the GPLv3.
I presume you mean "implicit".
There is no implied patent license in GPLv2. Claiming the GPLv2 has a patent license is wishful thinking. I think you are misreading section 7 of the GPLv2.
(Log in to post comments)
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:33 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
The authors of the license disagree with you on that
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
"GPLv3 also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement."
Patent licenses Posted Jul 20, 2009 19:35 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If Microsoft starts distributing the Linux kernel, things could indeed take an interesting turn of events: by distributing VFAT code they would be giving an implicit patent license to all Linux users. I bet they have already found this, so they will probably not distribute it as a whole.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 19:44 UTC (Mon) by davi (guest, #18853) [Link]
You seems right about "implicit"! I was mistaken, sorry.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:35 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> I presume you mean "implicit".
Yes, Thank you.
Patent threats?! Posted Jul 20, 2009 23:17 UTC (Mon) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
> There is no implied patent license in GPLv2. Claiming the GPLv2 has a patent license is wishful thinking.
Not only does the FSF disagree with you, as rahulsundaram points out above, but so did an independent legal firm (Fenwick & West LLP), who concluded that: "...it is reasonable to conclude that the implied license defense is available and tenable for a defendant in a patent suit involving software released under the GPL [v2.0]".
Source: www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf
|
|||||||||||||