Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:00:37 -0400

On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 15:37 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Ben Tilly wrote:
> >> So if GPLv2 didn't cause the balkanization of the FS world, I don't see
> >> how the GPLv3 can possibly do it.
> >
> > It may be that lots of companies wouldn't object to the GPL v2's
> > implicit grant simply because they didn't realize that it was in
> > there.
> >
> 
> 
> That's about my position but I'd add some stuff.
> 
> I think GPLv2
> 
>    a) will win over GPLv3d2 in the community, for the most part

why?

>    b) should (but its a toss-up) win among FSBs who have any influence,
>        for the most part

why? (I know some relevant FSB like the GPLv3)

>    c) implies a far broader patent covenant than GPLv3d2 seems to
>       implicitly state

can you explain why you think so?

>    d) but (c) -- and yes, this does take some thought to see -- is actually
>        a big win for pretty much everyone involved and is really not a
>        loss for anyone

I don't think so, honestly I don;t think there is any difference between
the explicit patent provisions in v3 and the implicit ones in v2 so this
is a non issue for me.

> Companies may not have though GPLv2 through in exactly all of these
> ways but I don't think they'll find anything to regret.

I think that you undervalue corporate lawyers.

> >> P.S: I've lobbied to add a clarification to section 11 in today
> >> committee-A conference call, and it is likely that it will be considered
> >> for addition in d3.
> >
> 
> I look forward to seeing what they come up with.   Is there political room
> to inject the "suggested claims" interpretation of GPLv2 into the mix?

What do you mean by the "suggested claims" ?

> Or is it, as I suspect, far, far too late?

It's not to late to comment and provide ideas, I don't think there is
room to completely change section 11 goals, but criticism is welcome and
taken in due account.

Simo.