Am Wednesday 08 November 2006 00:44 schrieb Marcel Mourguiart: > 2006/11/7, Adrian Schröter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Two weeks of vacation and now such big inbox ;) > > > > Am Saturday 04 November 2006 14:01 schrieb Pascal Bleser: > > ... > > > > > The fact that Novell might violate the GPL if there is an IP litigation > > > case against other Linux businesses (e.g. Redhat) and if MS wins that > > > litigation case in court, it would mean that e.g. Redhat would be > > > condemned, but not Novell. > > > This is a pretty hypothetical theory, as there hasn't been any > > > successful IP litigation claim against the Linux kernel or other > > > opensource projects until now (that's what SCO tried to do). > > > > Just to clarify this (as a non-lawyer without official opinion ;): > > > > 1. It is right that it is not allowed to limit the rights of GPL > > software via patents (or in any other ways). > > > > 2. It is right that this can't get workarounded by such an agreement. > > > > But consequence is that no one (neither Novell or MS or someone else) is > > allowed to put software under GPL, if the software is protected by other > > rules (like a patent). It can not be shipped by anyone in a legal way > > under > > this license, even not by the original author. > > Let me see if i understand your logic. > > Tomorrow, Microsoft sue Pepino Linux because according to MS, they use > software with MS patents, like Samba or any other crazy patent they have. > According to you, Pepino software can't distribute GPL software any more ? > > If Pepino Linux decide to make an agreement with Microsoft and go to clean > MS bathrooms every saturday in exchange MS agree to retired the sue, that's > mean Pepino Linux can't distribute GPL software any more, because the > agreement is only for Pepino Linux ?
If this patent is valid, no one can (apart from some exception for educational usage). The point is that you can not drop patents of other parties by implementing their patented stuff and declare it GPL. In short, you are not allowed to use the GPL license for your software, when there are patents, which do limitate the usage. (there might be patents, but they need to be granted for usage in a way which fit to the GPL.) Even Pepino Linux would still have a problem after this agreement, because they use software with an invalid license. No matter if MS will sue them or not. > Know according to you, if Pepino Linux before the sue make an agreement > with Microsoft, that says they are not going to get sue it by Microsoft > because patents, that's mean they can't distribute GPL software anymore ? > > Is this mean SUN can't distribute GPL software any more ?? we do only speak about that affected peace of software. Each other software has to be reviewed individually. The problem is not that suddenly the agreement caused something bad. The point is that this software was always in an illegal state, since the patent does hindered the usage of GPL. > And if the GPL software that Pepino Linux and SUN distribute are protected > _by MS patents_ and that's mean they can't distribute that's software with > the GPL license, that's mean Onion Linux can do it ? again, no. All what could happen is that Onion Linux says, okay this patent is not valid from our point of view, so we can ship it. But if it is valid, no one can. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
