Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:51 +1000, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
This means that if you host a GPLv3 covered programme on your website
> for instance (even if you didn't produce it or modify it in any way),
> you licence any patent you hold covering it.

Many (most?) lawyers think this is already true for GPLv2, due to the
clause I quoted above.

Well, this is the principle of Estoppel, I believe. To prevail on
estoppel, the distribution must have been deliberate, not inadvertent.
The v3 language also pulls in inadvertent distribution.

Either way, this is very different from the statement made in the
position statement. In this position statement it said:

As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially
jeopardise the entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the
act of placing a GPLv3 licensed programme on their website

If the "entire patent portfolio" consists of a small group of patents
which specifically deal with what the code has been posted by the
company deals with, then sure.

So we agree that the statement is true for a company that has only a
software patent portfolio.

But as written the position statement
is sensationalist and very misleading, especially when the current
GPLv2 requirements regarding patents are taken into account.

No, the point being made is that under v2, as long as the company was
only distributing, it didn't have to go over its patent portfolio
comparing it against the functions in the code on the website. It would
still be able to sue for a patent infringement in code as long as it
didn't deliberately mislead people into using that code.

> HP is already on record as objecting to this as disproportionate.

Could you point me at their statement? I suspect it didn't use the
same words used in the position statement :-)

Actually, HP had no input at all into the statement we made, so I would
be very surprised if the same words were used.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... Some people like GPLv2 purely on its ... over the years are completely consistent with the GPLv3 current draft. ... speeches by Richard and other FSF members, than the GPLv2 license text ... program will individually obtain patent licenses, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... to a true statement. ... if you develop GPLv2 packages, ... licence to every patent practised by every package I distribute, ... this is especially relavent for companies that have formerly been willing to act as mirrors for free software projects. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... >> company deals with, then sure. ... The company can consist of only a patent portfolio, ... than just software patents doesn't affect the truth of the statement. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... to a true statement. ... if you develop GPLv2 packages, ... licence to every patent practised by every package I distribute, ... is it possible that the 'random debian developer' could be sued for patent infringement if he isn't protected by the GPL? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • HP rockets to No. 5 on list of top U.S. patent recipients
    ... HP Announces Intellectual Property Licensing Group to Leverage Growing ... HP rockets to No. 5 on list of top U.S. patent recipients ... Seeking to leverage its rapidly growing patent portfolio, ...
    (comp.os.vms)