On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 16:33, Sean wrote:
> > They don't have to buy patents outright or even exclusively.
> > They can license their use of the technology under whatever
> > terms seem agreeable.
>
> Nor is there any such requirement for GPL use, you only have to
> secure a license which allows it to be used as desired.
If any portion of the code is covered by the GPL, the work
as a whole must be distributed under the GPL or not at
all. No other terms are permitted. Source distribution and
no additional restrictions on redistribution are required.
> > Things mixed with GPL components have no choice about terms.
> > Microsoft can agree on any terms that they expect to be
> > appropriate for their products. Will you continue to
> > pretend that those situations are equivalent?
>
> The _owner_ of the GPL work can agree on any terms they expect
> to be appropriate.
It is possible for the owner of a work to release it under
different licenses, one of which might be the GPL, if
that's what you mean. But then it's not using the GPL
at all under the other terms and can't include any code
that does.
> > You made the claim that anybody could go buy a patent
> > and release it under the GPL. Are you anybody? Show
> > me how it works or stop pretending that it is a real
> > possibility.
>
> If you must rely on such weasel wording to support your arguments
> you might want to rethink things.
You are the one who brought up the point. I'm just pointing
out the unlikely nature of such an event.
> I have the monetary means which
> would likely allow me to buy a patent or three. So far there is
> nothing I want to do with GPL software that has required it.
Maybe you can get the rights for the new HD DVD formats if there
are any patents involved...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
