On Monday 27 October 2003 10:31, 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...
True, but see for example fsmlabs Open RTLinux paent license:
"This License governs the royalty-free use of the process defined by U.S.
Patent No. 5,995,745. Anyone can license the use of the Patented Process by
agreeing to be bound by the terms of this License. Such person is considered
to be the Licensee ("Licensee"). The Patented Process may be used, without
any payment of a royalty, with two (2) types of software. The first type is
software that operates under the terms of a GPL (as defined later in this
License). The second type is software operating under Finite State Machine
Labs Open RTLinux (as defined below)"
-- http://www.fsmlabs.com/products/rtlinuxpro/rtlinux_patent.html
As long as you only practice the patent in a GPLed program, you're good to go.
If you want to use the program in something other (for example., aggregated
GPL and other licensed programs, like an embedded Linux platform running some
non GPLed app) you have to buy a patent license. I'm sure
AFAIK, this is acceptable by the copyright holders of Linux, whatever this may
be...
>
> 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.
I very much agree to this statement. If anyone wants, I know a good lawyer and
I'm willing to sell my proffesional opinion regarding the technical matters
in questoin, if anyone wants it :-)
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm)
http://www.codefidence.com
=================================================================
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]
