> From: Vries Gerjon de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:25:32 +0200 > > > I've thought about this, and it is my hope that the license I > > circulated precludes it. Clauses 4 and 5 read. > > > > 4. Source code for all programs used under this license must be > > publicly available, and public notice provided of means to obtain > > said source code. > > > > 5. The publicly available source code under clause 4 must either be > > US Govt work not subject to copyright or be copyright and > > made available according to the terms of any version of > > the GNU General > > Public License or the GNU Lesser General Public License as > > published by the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place, Suite > > 330, Boston MA 02111. > > > > Note that there is nothing in clause 4 about distribution. If Bad > > Company is practicing the patent (I think that's the right phrase) in > > its extensions, then it must make the source code for all programs > > that constitute such practice public by clause 4. And, by clause 5 it > > must make these G3 (GPL, LGPL, or govt. produced). If Bad Company is > > including enhancements covered under its patent, that's OK, provided > > that this is compatible with G3, presumably via a patent license that > > is similar to this one. If it is incompatible with G3, then it > > is incompatible with this license. So, the use you describe should > > be precluded. > > I don't think your reasoning holds. You can only (and do so by clause 5) > allow distribution under GPL, if the code will be licensed under GPL. GPL > does not allow additional restrictions/terms. Hence section 4 (and the rest > of your license) will be void when someone chooses to distribute the code > under the GPL. > >
I disagree with you, but you did make me realize that some other clauses are incompatible with GPL. Basically, I think I'm OK because clause 4 imposes no additional restrictions on the right to copy, distribute, or modify programs. The relevant clauses of GPL that discuss this are 0, 6, and 7. My clause 4 only restricts the use of such programs. `Use' here may be a bit subject to interpretation. I would think it is distinct from copying, distribution, and modification. If I am wrong, then this clause could be rephrased to say that if you run/execute a program, then you must make the source publicly available. I guess the choice of terms doesn't matter as long as they are explicitly defined in the license. The idea should be that if you just write or distribute code and never run it, you are OK as long as that is GPL or LGPL. If you run code, then you have to distribute it. I think there is no incompatibility with GPL there. However, you raise a good point that affects my clauses 1-3. I cannot require any other license statement to be attached to a GPL program: that's the original-BSD problem. So I propose the following modification, and thanks to you, simplification. NRL hereby grants a fully paid up, nonexclusive, royalty free license to practice the patent 6,266,704 if and only if such practice is the generation, modification, distribution, and/or execution of a computer program or programs such that 1. Source code for all programs run under this license must be publicly available, and public notice provided of means to obtain said source code. 2. Any program covered by this license must either be US Govt work not subject to copyright or be copyright and made available according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later, or the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston MA 02111. 4. No warranty implied by this license... 5. This license is irrevocable. Any other use requires separate licensing agreement with NRL. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
