Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:49:32 -0400

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 17:00 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> simo wrote: 
> > On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 13:00 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> > 
> >   
> > > For example, IBM may discover that, in shipping Linux systems,
> > > they have practiced many of their own patents.   Well, per RMS,
> > > those patents would all now be publicly licensed for any purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >     
> > 
> > This is plain FUD and bullshit, sorry.
> > Read the license, it doesn't say at all what you say.
> >   
> 
> You refer, I assume, to section 11 of GPLv3 which sounds superficially
> like it limits mandatory patent licensing to covered works.
> 
> That section reads, in part:
> 
>     If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying
>     on a non-sublicensable patent license that is not generally
>     available to all, you must either (1) act to shield downstream
>     users against the possible patent infringement claims from 
>     which your license protects you, or (2) ensure that anyone can
>     copy the Corresponding Source of the covered work, free of charge
>     and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available 
>     network server or other readily accessible means. 
> 
> 
> Point (1) is key.
> 
> 
> Suppose that IBM is distributing the Linux kernel which
> practices a patent from Sun to which IBM has a limited
> license contingent upon IBM not suing Sun for violation
> of certain other patents.
> 
> 
> You receive a copy of that kernel from IBM.
> 
> 
> Well, then, practice that patent at will because IBM, not
> you, is on the hook.

non sequitur

it is either (1) or (2), IBM can opt for (2)

Simo.