def DISCLAIMER():
for i in range(0,100):
IANAL
DISCLAIMER()
Software patents are against the ideology of FSF.
FSF never intended the GPL to coexist with software patents.
The client in question has two alternatives:
1. License the patent without fee to all distributors and users of GPLed
software embodying the patent, and in exchange of this - enjoy the
ability to use GPLed software in his product.
This does not restrict his ability to enforce his patent against
uses in non-GPLed software.
2. Invest in acquisition or in clean-room development of proprietary
software implementing the functionality of any GPLed software he needs
to practice his patent.
This is not different from the dilemma faced by software developers, who
have to decide between:
- Incorporation of GPLed software and GPLing their products, saving
development cost but giving up the ability to charge for copies of their
software.
- Investing in developing or acquiring proprietary software implementing
whatever features, for which he wanted to use GPLed code.
Or from any other situation, in which a designer is faced with deciding
between two alternatives for solving a problem, each of which has its own
benefits and costs.
On 27 Oct 2003, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If your client has a patent on something which the program implements he
> > can release the source code under the GPL without a worry because a
> > patent license is still required to "practice the patent" - run the
> > program even without any consideration of copyright issues.
>
> The client presumably wants royalties from his patent. If so, he would
> have a problem with distributing patented software under GPL. To quote
> GPL:
>
> ... 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.
>
> I am not legally qualified to assess the following situation: if I am
> the patent-holder, can I give you the program (for fee or for free),
> say it is GPLed, say the patent license is *not* royalty-free, and let
> you figure out from the above that GPL notwithstanding you cannot
> redistribute the program... According to my understanding of the
> spirit of GPL, I should not call the license GPL then...
>
> To the OP: I believe there is not enough information for any of us to
> give you a considered opinion. While some of us have a pretty good
> overall understanding of GPL, I know from experience that the IANAL
> qualifier is a very serious one. I have had some experience discussing
> GPL in legal terms with lawyers. I can only suggest that your client
> should get a very good lawyer and a very good technical consultant (I
> don't know if any freelancers subscribed to this list will want the
> job, but I certainly think there are one or two who would fit the
> bill), and make them work together. The GPL is a highly specialized
> and technically complicated specimen of IP law, and lawyers usually
> don't have the requisite technical know-how to deal with it on their
> own, and need guidance. That's where the technical consultant will
> come in. The techie himself will not be able to give a qualified legal
> advice, so you will need both, presumably paying each one by the hour.
--- Omer
My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
