Mark Shewmaker scripsit: > So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that > seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL, > but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have > been revoked.
That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q held by Person_Q for which Person_C has no license. Program_C is not usable by Person_C although properly distributed to him. The fact that Person_C's license to Patent_A is being revoked because of a patent-defense clause is interesting, but I don't see how it's specially relevant. (IANAL, TINLA, as usual.) > Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the > GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute > it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A. Sure he can distribute it to Person_C; Person_C just can't use what he gets. The GPL doesn't restrict me from distributing to you because you can't (due to some legal disability) use the program, any more than I am restricted from distributing CP/M programs to you under the GPL just because you don't have a Z80 machine to run them on. > In fact, looking at this from before Person_C starts a lawsuit, > you can think of things from the point of view that in order > for Person_[BC] to (continue to) have GPL-rights to Program_[ABC], > Person_C is required to refrain from suing Person_A for patent > infringement. The GPL rights of Person_[BC] are not altered, merely the use right of Person_C to Program_C. > So would the requirement-not-to-sue be an additional requirement > that would be counter to the GPL in the first place? No, or at least not on this line of reasoning. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3