Subject: Re: Patent-based dual-licensing open source business model
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:50:40 -0400

Replying to myself inline ...

On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:45 -0400, simo wrote:
> Section 11 of GPLv3 in it's actual form seems to allow such a patenting
> scheme under second paragraph point (2) of section 11, but I honestly
> think it is an oversight, as it seem rather strange to me that a
> copyleft license allows such a huge restriction on use and distribution
> of a covered work. It seems to me that this point has been intended to
> cover the situation where you are not the patent holder and you cannot
> rather than wish not grant a patent license. This aspect definitively
> need more investigation.

While section 11 may allow such scheme, I think section 12 forbids it in
the same way GPLv2 section 7 does. The interection between provisions in
section 11 and 12 seem to be rather complicated and the outcome not
completely clear, but I think in the end, prohibition to convey GPLv*
covered software in any form (even embedded in hardware by OEMs) is in
conflict with the license and terminates your rights to distribute the
software.

Simo.