MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17692.57123.749163.204216@samba.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:53:55 +1000
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
In-Reply-To: <1159515086.3880.79.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
	<17692.46192.432673.743783@samba.org>
	<1159515086.3880.79.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Reply-To: tridge@samba.org
From: tridge@samba.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1291
Lines: 31

James,

 > > 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.

No, we don't :)

The company can consist of only a patent portfolio, but additionally
all of those patents (ie. the "entire patent portfolio") would need to
be implemented by the program being distributed them.

That caveat is important, and changes it from a misleading statement
to a true statement. It also is a statement which is true for the
GPLv2, which makes it not such a useful statement to make when
considering the relative merits of the two licenses.

I'd also like to note that I don't have much sympathy for companies
that consist of only a patent portfolio. They are pretty much scum in
my view. If they don't make any products at all and live on only
patent revenue then the world would be better off without them :-)

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