-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Julian Oliver wrote:
> this is where the GPLv3's 'intolerant' and 'restrictive' stance is > sane, and i would argue, necessary in these cannibalistic times. > > don't forget also that patent offices are legal enterprises in their > own right: they want to widen the scope of what's considered > patentable in order to widen their wallets. this is precisely why > America is starting to see patents on things like narrative > structures, musical forms, videogame designs, the smell of fresh > bread etc.. > > here's some reccommended reading: > I think that instead of ranting, you should try to understand how such "patent protection" in GPL v3 actually works. The parts dealing with patents depend on the party distributing the code to also be obliged to grant licenses to any patents required for using/distributing the code further. To quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html: "Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated." This means, that adoption of GPL v3 doesn't give you ANY magic protection against 3rd-party patents at all. It only protects you from a company FOO contributing something to Soya and then claiming that it is patented and you cannot use/distribute it without paying them royalties (Microsoft-Novell case). However, that is fairly easy to protect against by code review when accepting patches and removal of such code if accused of patent violations (see e.g. Linux kernel developers dealing with patent issues). I cannot imagine Jiba or whoever accepting a code contribution from a company without reviewing it. Actually, this case is implicitly covered by GPL v2 already, GPL v3 only makes this more clear and explicit. In case of a patent troll or e.g. Blizzard suing Soya developers or somebody using Soya for violation of their patent, you are equally well screwed as before - unless Blizzard is also distributing (and dependent) on Soya, you are in exactly the same situation as before - GPL v3 doesn't (and cannot because it is a copyright license) give you any larger legal "hammer" to wield, because you cannot harm them by voiding a license for product they do not need/use. If you are thinking about a case when somebody takes e.g. Soya and gets a patent on something in it, then this is all moot - such patent would be trivially invalidated with prior art (Soya itself!). While I agree with your sentiment on software patents and their general stupidity and threat to software development, please, do educate yourself how the license actually works. It is fairly dangerous to make important decisions only on ideology and hear-say. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHXum9n11XseNj94gRAtbYAKDyI4XOPvCH9cdj2PTkS2KExTH7pwCgs4r3 CPZ7Xveu2KZZOv2ZFUJ//bU= =cbs5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
