The anti-patent clause was dropped ages ago. Mark
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Uriel Carrasquilla wrote: > So, is Astrisk being changed to an OSI-compliant license without the > "anti-patent" clause? > Uriel > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jan Rychter > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk > > > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > Mark> No problem, it's easy to get confused :) I would, however, take > Mark> issue with the GPL being "evil". It's not my *ideal* license, > Mark> but it certainly is good enough. > > Just for the reference, while we're at it. GPL does have an issue, which > can cause problems to some people or companies. It is often overlooked, > because the "open source" issues seem much more controversial. > > Having worked with GPL software quite a bit, also in the commercial > world, and having gotten some legal advice, I believe that the > "anti-patent" clauses in the GPL and LGPL are quite possibly the biggest > problem preventing the use of GPL'd software by commercial entities, > much bigger than the "pass on the source and the rights" requirement. > > An excerpt from the GPL: > > 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot > distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this > License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you > may not distribute the Program at all. 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. > [...] > 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in > certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the > original copyright holder who places the Program under this License > may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding > those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among > countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates > the limitation as if written in the body of this License. > > As I understand it (and as my legal counsel advises me) this effectively > means that if I distribute GPL/LGPL code, I have to make sure that its > distribution and re-distribution is not restricted by patents (or other > restrictions). > > If the code in question contains parts which some patents lay claim to, > restricting distribution, then I must not distribute the code at > all. Furthermore, by distributing the code I breach the GPL and expose > myself to legal threat of a lawsuit from the FSF. > > It is needless to mention that it is impossible to me to verify that no > patents (worldwide!) lay claim to the code I'm distributing and impose > restrictions upon its distribution. Sooner or later I'm going to find > out that I do not comply with the GPL, because I distribute GPLd code > even though there are patent restrictions that apply to it. > > An example of a particularly clear case of this problem is the XviD code > (http://www.xvid.org/), which is GPL-licensed. It seems to me that the > authors (copyright holders, to be precise) may distribute the software > under any license they choose, but nobody else is allowed to > re-distribute it, because they would be violating section 7 of the GPL, > as the MPEG-4 compression is (in some countries) covered by patents > requiring royalties to be paid. > > This is an issue which is very often overlooked in the hot GPL > debates. However, in the commercial world, it is possibly the most > important one. > > Conclusion (IMHO of course): if you have the choice, use a license that > is OSI-compliant but does not have the "anti-patent" clause. Or has it > phrased differently. > > --J. > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
