Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:39:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:39:57 -0400 Received: from dsl-65-186-160-165.telocity.com ([65.186.160.165]:44550 "EHLO pumpkin.fieldses.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:39:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:39:37 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: David Schwartz , trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, Christoph Hellwig , Bill Davidsen , Guillaume Boissiere , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6] The List, pass #2 Message-ID: <20020801153936.GA17759@fieldses.org> References: <1028209375.14871.3.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1028209375.14871.3.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3058 Lines: 59 On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 10:33, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > >An additional problem with a BSD like license is that it makes no > > >statement on patents - regrettably a critical issue now days in the > > >USSA. That means nothing prevents CITI from providing BSD licensed code > > >and then 6 months later sueing everyone who used it. I don't see CITI > > >doing that but the basic problem is still there. > > > > Sure something prevents them. You can't induce people to violate your patent > > and then complain when they do what you induced them to do. Remember Rambus? > > You don't have to induce them, you just announce release 1 and wait for > someone to pick it up and merge it. I don't know about that. But I don't accept the claim that the GPL's statements on patents adds any additional protection against a copyright-owner later deciding to pursue a patent. Here's the relevant clause of the GPL: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, 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. Note that the "you" referred to in this clause is the licensee, not the copyright owner. Thus the effect of this clause is only to prevent licensees from redistributing a work with patent problems. In the case of a contributor to a project like the Linux kernel, however, two things are happening at once: 1. The contributor is creating original works which are copyright to that contributor. 2. The contributor is creating a derived work of the Linux kernel, which is copyright to a whole bunch of other people. The only thing that permits a contributor like CITI to create and distribute derived works of the Linux kernel is the contributor's acquiescence to the GPL on *other* people's works. So if CITI a year from now decided to start collecting royalties on some hypothetical patent, it would be violating the GPL on other people's code; the license on the particular files that CITI added would be irrelevant. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something here. --Bruce Fields - 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/