Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:26:07 -0400

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 17:26 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Sorry, no, but (2) of section 11 is effectively a no-op.   IBM can't
> grant me full section 11 rights unless they are exercising (1), hence
> a (2)-only distribution is verboten.
> 
> (2) and the "either ... or...." is just odd, frankly.   The only thing
> it tries to add is "no charge" and it makes GPLv3 overall incoherent.

Even if that holds true, which I don't think as I disagree from your
conclusions, this does not change the fact that your claim that:

	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.

is simply not true.

IBM will give permission to use its own patents for use within the scope
of the program released not "any purpose whatsoever".
For patents IBM have no right on, it must just act per (2) of 11 if IBM
has no way to act per (1).

Section 11 give IBM the chance to exercise (2), I don't see how it can
be a no-op but that's up to you to explain :-)

Simo.