Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote: >> With that said, the usual approach that Debian follows is that if the >> patent is not being actively enforced, Debian does not worry about >> them. Otherwise, Debian would not be able to ship anything. Since >> you claim later > > It's hard to know. Cisco do have a history of initiating patent > enforcement actions though. E.g.: > > > https://blogs.cisco.com/news/protecting-innovation-itc-945-initial-determination > > How much that would concern one would depend on one's situation. > > Personally, I don't have an issue with that style of licence cause it > only limits those who want to sue over patents. Which seems fine to > me.
IBM also has a history of suing everyone. If they are not suing over a particular patent, then it is not all that productive to worry about it. <snip> > (On whether concerns are founded: The brief informal legal advice I've > had seemed to suggest maybe - your reply above seems to too; what I > can't get clarity on is that issue of the reasonable degree of > caution, and the appropriate balance between different interests). I do not think I can give you any more clarity. Almost every non-trivial piece of software infringes patents, so objecting to the GPL because of an unenforced patent license would make almost all GPL software undistributable. I do not know how much mischief could be caused by bad actors. I can not imagine very much, but I might not be very imaginative ;) Cheers, Walter Landry