[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: business models [was patent stuff]
    Alan Cox wrote:
    >On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 18:13, Adam J. Richter wrote:
    >> You could license all programs that consist entirely of
    >> free software. That way, BSD, LGPL, and MPL software that did
    >> not link in proprietary software would be allowed too, but your
    >> example of a proprietary program that linked in the BSD'ed
    >> libpatent.o/c would not be covered by this permission.
    >Define "free software" using only legally defined phrases which have
    >precedent. In fact put four people in a room and get them to define free

    Many if not all legal documents contain more than
    "only legally defined phrases which have precedent." I'm sure Red Hat
    has signed many. You can reasonably find a definition that covers 99%
    of what people consider free software and make subsequent grants later.
    In the other direction, if you accidentally include some less than
    free software, that should not matter much if you are only taking out
    these patents for "defensive" purposes.

    Example definitions might be: "public domain or any license
    certified by the Open Software Initiative", "a license that has
    no more restrictions than version 2 of the GNU General Public License
    as published by the Free Software Foundation ("or any subsequent
    version"?)." You could also cut and paste from OSI or Debian bullet

    More importantly, licensing patents only for pure GPL'ed use
    is unlikely to become a norm that you can expect broad adoption of
    in free software businesses, as many of them tend to be proponents of
    slightly different copying permissions. If we have a bunch of patents
    licensed for GPL-only, another bunch for MPL-only, another bunch for
    pure-BSD only, then the patent proliferation that I described
    yesterday will still probably occur.

    You have a fleeting opportunity to possibly head most of this
    off, but you have to look beyond just your favorite license. Many
    developers and even companies' managements identify strongly with their
    favorite licenses, and feel personally about their ability to develop
    free software under those licenses. If the GPL developers don't shield
    the Apache developers, the X developers, the BSD developers, and the
    MPL developers so that their ability to continue with the free software
    portion of their activities has been respected, do you really think
    they'll shield GPL development from their patents?

    Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road \ / Milpitas, California 95035
    +1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
    "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.023 / U:54.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site