Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:25:36 -0700
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:25:36 -0700
I can't make heads or tails of your comment.

GPLv3 is very much a patent covenant yet you say that
GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same with respect to patents
and that GPL is not a patent covenant.   So.... you seem
confused, on the face of this comment.

Perhaps you should try to elaborate and clarify?

-t


s wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 09:53 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
>
>   
>> If the answer to that question is "yes", then very clearly the
>> GPL has failed to protect Stallman's freedom's 0, 2, and 3
>> (copying, modification, sharing of modifications).  The GPL had
>> double failed by permitting Alice to release Prog1 which carried
>> these extra restrictions.
>>     
>
> I think you constantly forget that the GPL is a copyright license not a
> patent covenant, and that GPLv2 or GPLv3 make no difference wrt patent
> claims.
>
> Or are you asking for the GPLv3 to be stronger than the GPLv2 wrt
> patents?
>
> Simo.
>
>
>   



I can't make heads or tails of your comment.

GPLv3 is very much a patent covenant yet you say that
GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same with respect to patents
and that GPL is not a patent covenant.   So.... you seem
confused, on the face of this comment.

Perhaps you should try to elaborate and clarify?

-t


s wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 09:53 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:

  
If the answer to that question is "yes", then very clearly the
GPL has failed to protect Stallman's freedom's 0, 2, and 3
(copying, modification, sharing of modifications).  The GPL had
double failed by permitting Alice to release Prog1 which carried
these extra restrictions.
    

I think you constantly forget that the GPL is a copyright license not a
patent covenant, and that GPLv2 or GPLv3 make no difference wrt patent
claims.

Or are you asking for the GPLv3 to be stronger than the GPLv2 wrt
patents?

Simo.