SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration

Posted Apr 19, 2009 17:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332)
In reply to: SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration by alankila
Parent article: SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration

"" For instance, you write this: "GPLv2 is much more easy to hijack". I have no idea why you think GPLv3 software is any less easy to hijack. ""

easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo...

In GPLv2 that doesn't apply... you still can sue anyone that might use that GPLv2 code for patent infringement...

In either case you can still license the patent to anyone that might be willing to pay... be it in GPL repos or outside... but i can't see that happen in GPLv3 code since by the terms of it, you are already giving a grant "a priori"

SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration

Posted Apr 20, 2009 10:27 UTC (Mon) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link]

"easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo..."

While this is a valid point, it was never the situation I had in mind. It's good to know that GPLv3 will prevent perverting codebase from becoming polluted by submarine patents that are owned by the code contributor.

SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration

Posted Apr 20, 2009 19:28 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo...

This is true if the *owner* of the patent places the code in that GPLv3 repo. Unlikely to happen if said owner is even toying with the idea of trolling with it, to say the very least.

If I (coder on foot, not the patent owner nor a licensee allowed to do so) place the code in a GPLv3 repo I'd be in very hot water indeed...