4 ms·

All code is subject to patents. All GPL code is subject to patents - you don't get to build any machine you want to run your GPL code without licenses UNLESS yo

All code is subject to patents. All GPL code is subject to patents - you don't get to build any machine you want to run your GPL code without licenses UNLESS you made the mistake of contributing to a GPL project. Then anyone can copy your hardware designs for free and sell those machines, too - as long as they include the GPL software. Would courts actually enforce that? The vast majority of corporations act as though they would and won't use or allow contributions by their employees to patent-grab licenses. (The Linux kernel is a special case with "stranded rights" since the kernel can't function alone - which is why Google spent billions to reproduce the GNU libraries with a freer license, but didn't have to replace the kernel at the same time - they're doing that now with the Fuschia project.) Dragonfly BSD, etc, is safe and perfectly usable as long as someone is selling hardware that's licensed, say by Intel or Qualcomm.

e12e 8y ago
> All code is subject to patents. Well, yeah. All code is subject to copyright too. But you can avoid having that copyright encumber users by using a Free license. Now why would you not want to free users for patents that pertain only to the code you're giving away/sharing under a free license? If you contribute an image codec, people can safely use that to build on. It will not grant them a patent to your other hw patents, like an ISA or office chair design or image sensing chip. Sure, if you're Fraunhofer living off of mp3 encoding licenses, you might not want to give away what you're making a living off. But then you'd probably not give away a software encoder either. And sure, if you did, you'd probably chose a hostile license that allowed you to keep enforcing your patent. And, if you contribute something else, like a load balancer, and the FSF write something like lame, and you sue the fsf - you won't be allowed to (at no cost) continue to violate patents covered by the loadbalancer, assuming the fsf holds a patent that covers some aspect of that. I still don't see the problem? If you don't want to share code, then.. Don't? But if you do, share in a meaningful way?
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  It doesn't pertain only to the code, it pertains even to the hardware you might need to run that code (see previous mention of ISA). Note that sharing any code of any kind - including irrelevant to your patents, allows others to use any patents you have. [edit, other licenses, I stand corrected]
  - e12e 8y ago
    Well, yeah, it cover patents that are required to run/use the code. Just as the copyright license grants the right to use the code. But: > Note that sharing any code of any kind - including irrelevant to your patents, allows others to use any patents you have. No? Not "any patents"? It explicitly grants right to use patents needed to run the code?: > Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. Now, if you have mp3 patent, someone else writes an infringing implementation, and you then contribute a patch - then yeah, you'd have granted everyone use of that patent. So, if you wanted to enforce that patent, don't give away a patent license for free?
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      I.E. don't contribute, don't distribute - which is why we've wasted immense billions having to replicate GPL-licensed software under other licenses. Not green, not fun, not necessary, not helpful.

e12e 8y ago

> All code is subject to patents. Well, yeah. All code is subject to copyright too. But you can avoid having that copyright encumber users by using a Free license. Now why would you not want to free users for patents that pertain only to the code you're giving away/sharing under a free license? If you contribute an image codec, people can safely use that to build on. It will not grant them a patent to your other hw patents, like an ISA or office chair design or image sensing chip. Sure, if you're Fraunhofer living off of mp3 encoding licenses, you might not want to give away what you're making a living off. But then you'd probably not give away a software encoder either. And sure, if you did, you'd probably chose a hostile license that allowed you to keep enforcing your patent. And, if you contribute something else, like a load balancer, and the FSF write something like lame, and you sue the fsf - you won't be allowed to (at no cost) continue to violate patents covered by the loadbalancer, assuming the fsf holds a patent that covers some aspect of that. I still don't see the problem? If you don't want to share code, then.. Don't? But if you do, share in a meaningful way?

Nomentatus 8y ago
It doesn't pertain only to the code, it pertains even to the hardware you might need to run that code (see previous mention of ISA). Note that sharing any code of any kind - including irrelevant to your patents, allows others to use any patents you have. [edit, other licenses, I stand corrected]
- e12e 8y ago
  Well, yeah, it cover patents that are required to run/use the code. Just as the copyright license grants the right to use the code. But: > Note that sharing any code of any kind - including irrelevant to your patents, allows others to use any patents you have. No? Not "any patents"? It explicitly grants right to use patents needed to run the code?: > Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. Now, if you have mp3 patent, someone else writes an infringing implementation, and you then contribute a patch - then yeah, you'd have granted everyone use of that patent. So, if you wanted to enforce that patent, don't give away a patent license for free?
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    I.E. don't contribute, don't distribute - which is why we've wasted immense billions having to replicate GPL-licensed software under other licenses. Not green, not fun, not necessary, not helpful.