Mark Spencer: > The anti-patent clause was dropped ages ago. What do you mean? I can still see it in the LICENSE file in Asterisk.
--J. > 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.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
