On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > or do you mean "we must grant you a license to this other patent we
> > used to implement something covered by a GPL patent" ? What if the
> > person implementing the GPL patent doesn't have the ability to license
> > that patent?
>
> then in a similar, analogous way to GPL libraries and proprietary source
> code, if you can't get the ability to license or use that patent, you
> can't use that patent to produce your product.
It seems like you need the ability to license the patent to others.
Merely having the ability to use it will not allow you to comply
with this requirement -- since then you can't give others the ability
to use your software / patent / whatever.
>
> obviously, if you can buy a component (equivalent to a library) and use it
> in a product, you shouldn't have to research and fully disclose all
> patents on the individual component.
>
> requires a lot of thinking through, doesn't it? :)
Yup.
> more that... anyone can implicitly license the patent (i.e you have
> _already_ given permission) if they are prepared to make a "full
> disclosure" of all intellectual property used in an implementation of a
> product atht uses the patent.
Can I offer a general license of this type now, if I hold a patent?
That is, can I take a patent and make some kind of legally binding
declaration which makes it available under these conditions?
What I'm trying to determine is why a new law is needed to provide
for this kind of license. It would be better if no new law is required;
then patent holders could be persuaded to offer such licenses right now.
or did you mean that _every_ patent would be under GPL by default?
Thanks,
-David Molnar
