| |||||||||||||
Unfortunately the FSF thinks the GPL end justifies any misleading meansUnfortunately the FSF thinks the GPL end justifies any misleading meansPosted Sep 11, 2010 18:56 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Unfortunately the FSF thinks the GPL end justifies any misleading means by FlorianMueller Parent article: FSF responds to Oracle v. Google and the threat of software patents
Section 6: "...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ..."
I don't see how patents would be excluded from that.
Section 7 might not be useful in the Oracle v. Google case, since there are no third party patents, but it can be useful in other cases since it implies that if you rely on a patent licence, and if you have the authority to pass that licence on to recipients, then you do so. (Otherwise you'd be violating copyright.)
(Log in to post comments)
Unfortunately the FSF thinks the GPL end justifies any misleading means Posted Sep 11, 2010 19:04 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Section 6: "...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ..." It's a broad statement and not imposing restrictions is not the same as granting a license. By not owning any relevant patents, one can also satisfy the requirement you quoted. Comncerning Section 7, it seems that patent license deals are done by companies using GPLv2 software. If they only use the software themselves (like Amazon and Salesforce), that's no problem, but the likes of HTC redistribute. I'm just describing what's happening; if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any patents of that kind in the first place. So by just looking non-judgmentally at what's going on in the market, it looks like Section 7 is either easily circumvented or toothless...
|
|||||||||||||