3 ms·
Does it restrict your capability to distribute the code? Or the user's capability to run the code unless they have properly licensed the patent contained therei
by jdmichal 10y ago
Does it restrict your capability to distribute the code? Or the user's capability to run the code unless they have properly licensed the patent contained therein?
I'm specifically thinking about sub-pixel font rendering, for which FreeType contains code which is disabled by default due to patents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering#Patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering#Patents
That would imply that it's the latter. Which, of course, is still an issue for the user. But it does point to the GPL not requiring the patent clause in order to meet its copyleft goals.
- Nomentatus 10y agoInteresting angle. I'd say the courts haven't ruled on this. FreeType wasn't created by Microsoft, obviously. It has no license for M's patented tech so it can't include the code live, period. I presume that FreeType is trying to skirt the law by making it easy for users to break the law without, they hope, being seen as breaking the law themselves. I don't know what the court would decide if Microsoft sued. Presumably FreeType would say that the code was there just to help future programmers catch up when the patent expires. I'm guessing they wouldn't win that one. So, I'm going to say it's not a sufficient example.