Subject: RE: termless copyright and patents
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:58:03 -0700

> > 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.

I have never been able to understand the intended scope of so-called
"implicit" patent grants in the GPL or other open source licenses. At least
some of what people believe about such licenses may be wishful thinking.

I prefer written terms that I can analyze.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: s [mailto:s@ssimo.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: stephen@xemacs.org
> Cc: Thomas Lord; Free Software for Business
> Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
> 
> 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.