Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:31 UTC (Tue) by sveinrn (guest, #2827)In reply to: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF by JoeBuck
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
No. It's enough that both IBM's version and my own "improved" version does XYZ, where XYZ is covered by the patent I need but don't want to pay for.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:23 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
But it's very contrived.
Also say bundling GPLv3 software in a distribution doesn't affect other software in that distribution. It's that derived work thing.
For instance if i have program A which is GPL and program B which is BSD and I stick them on a CDROM together or put them in a distribution then B would still be BSD. The GPL software simply by being present or distributed with other software doesn't affect it.
You would have to stick the code in a library or something so that ALL the software your running on your system uses code distributed from IBM.
The thing is that while some companies would hate to have this... Other companies would LOVE to have the GPLv3 patent language. There is a definate very corporate-friendly reason why Sun choose to do the patent language in the CDDL the way they did.
The way things are going if your talking about corporate acceptance of Linux NOT having patent language in the license is going to start hurting it a lot more then having it.
So keep that in mind. This GPLv3 patent protection stuff is something that many businesses realy want to have, for obvious reasons.
As a business, say your HP. Do you want to ship IBM source code in your products and end up being sued by IBM for patent infringment?
Think about that one.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:29 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link]
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...
Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:02 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link]
The paragraph in question reads:
> "You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and
"the party's essential patent claims in the material that the party
The term "covered work" can only sanely apply to any single version, not
In any case, if IBM has provided you with a GPLv3'd program and thus
Ya sure it could work that way.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
I don't think my example is far-fetched. Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
> No. It's enough that both IBM's version and my own "improved""essential patent claims" in "covered works"
> version does XYZ, where XYZ is covered by the patent I need
> but don't want to pay for.
> conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under
> this License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting
> party will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's
> essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed,
> against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this License.
> If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all
> recipients, including recipients of works based on the covered work,
> not to assert any of your essential patent claims in the covered
> work."
conveyed" makes it pretty clear that it only refers to the version
distributed by the patent holder. The only *possible* ambiguity is that
the covenant is restated in the opposite direction ("you similarly
covenant...") in slightly less explicit language.
to "the covered work as distributed by you, or any parent work from which
that work is derived, or any other work derived from any such parent
work". Such an interpretation allows frivolous and nonsense arguments
like "the FSF stole my whole patent portfolio".
covenants not to sue you for any patent claims implemented therein, what
difference does it make whether your exercise of such patents is in the
program as provided by IBM or as modified by you? From my reading, if
you implement anything *extra* for which IBM has a different "essential
patent claim", you're fair game.