Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

[Florian Weimer]

* Paul Jakma:

> It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright 
> and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is 
> that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential 
> royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require unconditional, 
> non-revocable patent grant.
>
>   "7. ... For example, if a patent
>license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
>all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
>the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
>refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

But that only applies after a patent dispute, so I don't see how this
is relevant to the discussion.  The GPL, version 2, does not say
anything about the need to obtain patent licenses proactively, which
would be a futile effort anyway in most cases.

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

[Walter Landry]

Paul Jakma  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.


> (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

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

[Paul Jakma]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote:


 "For any claims of any Cisco patents that are necessary for
 practicing
  the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol specification
  , any party will have the right to use any such
  patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with
  reciprocity, to implement and fully comply with the specification.


This means that Cisco's patent grant only applies if you are
implementing EIGRP.  So that feels incompatibile.


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.



What I've gotten from those exchanges suggests there is little reason
to be concerned about the Cisco patent or the licence.


then it would be fine for Debian.


That's on the concern about the patent and its licence. Which is where 
most people I've talked to stop the analysis. However, the concern 
that's been raised is on the other side.


The concern raised is about the /copyright/ holders in the other GPLv2+ 
licensed code, on which the EIGRP GPLv2 code depends. The concern is 
those other copyright holders could object that the EIGRP code that 
depends on their code is patent encumbered, with potential royalties, 
and hence incompatible with the licence they gave on the use of their 
code.


At a practical level, are those concerns founded, and what degree of 
caution on such concerns is warranted? Both in terms of reasonable 
protection against hostile copyright holders (e.g. SCO situations where 
copyrights fall into wrong hands) and deference to the wishes of 
friendly copyright holders who object to patent encumberances; but 
without unreasonably restricting others' ability to distribute code they 
have written?


(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).


regards,
--
Paul Jakma | p...@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time
to do it over?

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

[Walter Landry]

Paul Jakma  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question I have not been able to get a conclusion to,
> regarding the compatibility of the licence Cisco have given to their
> EIGRP patents, by way of their declaration under the IETF "IPR"
> process. That declaration being:
> 
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2236/
> 
> The relevant grant/licence text being:
> 
>  "For any claims of any Cisco patents that are necessary for practicing
>   the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol specification
>   , any party will have the right to use any such
>   patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with
>   reciprocity, to implement and fully comply with the specification.

This means that Cisco's patent grant only applies if you are
implementing EIGRP.  So that feels incompatibile.

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

> What I've gotten from those exchanges suggests there is little reason
> to be concerned about the Cisco patent or the licence.

then it would be fine for Debian.

Note that I am not the decider.  The Debian FTP masters are the final
arbiters.  They are extremely busy, so they rely on this list to sort
out the easy cases.  The only way to get a definitive ruling from the
FTP masters is to create and submit a package.  I am a random person
who has been following the debian-legal mailing list for some time, so
I think I have a sense of what the FTP masters are thinking.  YMMV.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu