Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: s <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:49:50 -0400

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:47 +0900, stephen@xemacs.org wrote:
> s writes:
> 
>  > The extent of the GPLv2 implicit patent clause and that of the explicit
>  > GPLv3 should be more or less the same.
> 
> That is the FSF's position, but the status of implicit patent licenses
> is apparently very controversial, and I would imagine that that means
> that so is the equivalence of implicit terms and explicit ones.

That's why I say "more or less" :-)

> Also, as Tom points out, there is a difference in legal terminology
> here ([implicit] "license" vs. "covenant not to enforce"), and I
> wonder if that doesn't prevent them from being equivalent in important
> ways.

This is a very good question, but I see no better solution. But it make
sense to have a word of too from a Lawyer (Larry ? :) too known if he
thinks the GPLv3 explicit covenant may cover less cases than an implicit
one.

Simo.