Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:53 UTC (Tue) by sveinrn (guest, #2827)In reply to: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF by pinky0x51
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>so i don't think that they have any problem to check all their software distributions against all software patents
I have read a couple of software patents, and with the convoluted language they are written in, I am usually only able to get som very faint idea about what is being covered. So I don't think that is possible.
So I think that IBM's strategy is that if any real software company sues IBM for violating their patents, IBM will defend itself with at least ten times as many violations of IBM's patents. Of course a company with only patents and no products could be dangerous, but very few of those companies have the resources necessary for years of litigation against IBM's lawyers.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:18 UTC (Tue)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:39 UTC (Tue)
by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742)
[Link]
maybe it isn't possible. I'm even sure it isn't possible.
Even if i accept your argument (only in the discussion with you, in a talk
to
someone like IBM i would take the position described above) than you have
to look at the irony in it. They cross-license with their competitors. So
they can promise not to sue the competitor, but they can't promise not to
sue their customers? As a customer i wouldn't buy anything from a company
which sells something to me and says "but maybe we will sue you with our
patents if you use the thing you have bought from us in a way we don't
like".
You can make it even easier. You don't have to be a lawyer to
understand the GPL you only have to be a lawyer if you want to find holes
in the licence. But if you want to use the license in honor you just have
to understand the simple idea: I sell you the program and you have the
right to use it for any purpose, study and modify it, share it and copy
modified versions under the same license. I think it's not hard to
understand it and exactly this
is the spirit in which you should act and nothing can happen. But if you
think that you can make this promise through copyright and than cancel it
through technology like DRM, through patent law or through any other law
or technology which could be appear in the future than you should better
stay away from GPL code and never use or distribute it because than the
license makes promises you can't abide.
More important, to IBM, they cross-license their patent portfolios with the companies they are most likely to infringe, so they can't sue each other.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>>so i don't think that they have any problem to check all their
software distributions against all software patentsSome GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>I have read a couple of software patents, and with the convoluted
language they are written in, I am usually only able to get som very faint
idea about what is being covered. So I don't think that is possible.
But that's the point. IBM is pro software patents, IBM tells governments
that software patents are a great idea and that their is no problem to
deal with them and than i take them by their word and say "you can deal
will all the patents out their, than you shouldn't have a problem to deal
with your own patents". We shouldn't allow them to take one position if
they speak to
politicians and another position if they speak to the Free Software
Community. They have to
decide if software patents are a good idea or not and if they can deal
with them in a honor way. They have decided that it's a good idea and that
they can deal with it now they have to deal with it.