Section 5.2 and 5.3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 18:25 UTC (Fri) by atai (subscriber, #10977)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

The DRM part is an existing controversy and this article provides little new.

For section 5.2, the additional requirements allowed, excluding the ASP clause, seem reasonable and are common in some other Free Software licenses, so their combinations should not cause the type of fragmentation as stated in the article. After all, when you combine existing free software under different licenses, you need to go through the process anyway. The ASP clause clearly should not be used in the kernel but may be useful for people writing content management systems.

Section 5.3, it may seem a good idea to allow people to assert patent claims against these who assert patent claims against them... (Current GPL 3 draft does not seem to allow that possibility)

to post comments

Section 5.2 and 5.3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 10:06 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

That I believe is not a problem. You are only not allowed to assert the claim against GPLv3 code that you distributed. But you are allowed to assert claim on other code. Ofcourse if somebody is asserting patent claim against you, you can still assert your patents on the other guys nonGPLv3 software. Ofcourse if the other person distributed the same GPLv3 code he will also not be able to assert the claim on you. Seems perfectly logical to me.