Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 16:28 +1000, tridge@samba.org wrote:
>  > > from. The wording in GPLv2 is:
>  > > 
>  > >   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.
>  > 
>  > This means if you try to enforce royalties on a patent in a piece of
>  > GPLv2 software, you and everyone else lose the right to distribute it.
>  > However, to enforce or license royalty free is an existing choice.  The
>  > damage caused by making the programme undistributable is assessable
>  > against the value of the patent.
> 
> I think you would have a hard time convincing a judge that "permit
> royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly
> or indirectly through you" applies only to "right now", and you can
> reserve the right to start charging royalties or other enforcements at
> a later date.

Erm ... I think you'll find there's already case law precedent on that:
the SCO case.  The question there was could SCO sue IBM for copyright
infringement after having distributed the kernel from their website.
The answer, from the judge in the case, was yes.

James


-
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/