Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751501AbWI3W3Z (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:29:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751512AbWI3W3Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:29:24 -0400 Received: from post-23.mail.nl.demon.net ([194.159.73.193]:3835 "EHLO post-23.mail.nl.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751501AbWI3W3Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <451EEFC2.4090600@rebelhomicide.demon.nl> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:29:22 +0200 From: Michiel de Boer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060915) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Lang CC: James Bottomley , tridge@samba.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.46192.432673.743783@samba.org> <1159515086.3880.79.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.57123.749163.204216@samba.org> <1159559443.9543.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1776 Lines: 35 David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Well, this is the whole point. Today, you can distribute GPLv2 packages >> without much patent worry ... if you develop GPLv2 packages, that's >> different, but if you simply act as a conduit, you're not going to have >> too much trouble.. If I take the broad interpretation that I give a >> licence to every patent practised by every package I distribute, then I >> don't know what my liability might be until I've done an IP assessment >> of everything that's distributed from the website. That means not just >> what I'm working on, but also what support put up there to assist a >> customer, and also what the engineers are putting up in their private >> areas. > > this is especially relavent for companies that have formerly been > willing to act as mirrors for free software projects. now the act of > mirroring debian means that any patent they own could be comprimised > by a random debian developer adding a patch to any of 19000 packages > that implements that patent Conversely, is it possible that the 'random debian developer' could be sued for patent infringement if he isn't protected by the GPL? Besides, software patents are evil, period. Regards, Michiel de Boer - 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/