Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762053AbXF1E71 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:59:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754199AbXF1E7K (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:59:10 -0400 Received: from lsd-gw.ic.unicamp.br ([143.106.7.165]:60589 "EHLO boneca.lsd.ic.unicamp.br" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753171AbXF1E7I (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:59:08 -0400 To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: From: Alexandre Oliva Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:57:18 -0300 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Wed\, 27 Jun 2007 20\:44\:21 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2793 Lines: 55 On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: > Until someplace you can't actually access the software is customarily used > for software interchange, ... As in TiVo boxes? :-) :-) > This is a defect in the GPL. At least as I understood it, the intent > was to force distributors to remove any code for which there was a > patent claim that might threaten redistribution. Section 7 fails to > do that. It's not intended to do that. The existence of a patent doesn't render the Software non-Free. The patent holder's threats or willingness to enforce it doesn't render the Software non-Free. It's accepting a restrictive license, voluntarily or by means of a court order, that does. And the GPL is not about anything but doing as much as a copyright license can do to make sure the covered Free Software remains Free for all its users. So, requesting licensees to not use their patents to deny other users' freedoms is something a copyright license can do. But since it can't affect patent holders that are not copyright licensees, or any other legal mechanisms that non-licensees could use to restrict users' freedoms, it remains silent about this, rather than forcing licensees to comply with laws or avoid risks that might not even apply to themselves. > While you are granted rights under copyright, section 7 does not prevent > people from using other laws (so long as they don't impose the restrictions > or agree to them) to hamer your right to redistribute (or for those who > receive a distribution from you to lawfully use the work). I think that's correct, and IMHO that's how it's intended to be. > It is quite difficult to actually arrange this. You would need something > like a third party to indemnify your customers without your having to agree > to such indemnification. ... and without making you a party in this collusion. Basically, if you're involved in the process of denying users' freedoms, the GPL may have teeth for you. If you're not, and you're not a licensee of code present in that software, there's no way the GPL can stop you from imposing whatever restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just in case their downstream users might become your next target. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/