Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:38:12 -0700

simo wrote:
> 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".
>   


If IBM uses 11(1), they are giving downstream a shield that is not 
limited to a
covered work.   

I don't see any way for IBM to use 11(2) without simultaneously doing 11(1).
I see no way for IBM to use 11(2) only while granting downstream the same
rights IBM received.


> For patents IBM have no right on, it must just act per (2) of 11 if IBM
> has no way to act per (1).
>
>   


If IBM can not act per 11(1) then they can not give their downstream the 
right to act
per 11(1).   Now, either that means that IBM may not distribute the program
at all or that FSF is a bunch of bleeding hypocrites.


-t



> 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.
>
>
>