5 ms·

I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?

by naner 15y ago

rbanffy 15y ago
As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Chrome, OTOH, may have some problems. Also, it's unlikely Chrome will be Microsoft's target - it's more likely Android will. Chrome is much less of a threat to Microsoft's future and Android includes a WebKit-based browser.
- naner 15y ago
  As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Regardless the license, aren't they still vulnerable to claims of patent violation?
  - simonster 15y ago
    Some licenses explicitly state that contributors license relevant software patents that they control. Whether GPL 2.1 includes a patent grant is unclear, but the Mozilla Public License certainly does.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Does the GPL contain a patent grant and/or indemnification clause? I think only the GPL v3 does which wasn't around then.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    As was discussed a hundred times, GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license (because it's impossible to grant the required rights without granting the usage of the patented technology and not granting those rights is a license violation).
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license Has been tested in court? I think the answer is no. The logic Stallman brings up seems valid, though.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        I think it wasn't, but I think the reasoning is strong enough to prevent it form ever being tested. It's easier to settle.
    - mbreese 15y ago
      An explicit grant is much better than an implicit one (and is one reason why the university where I did my grad work refused to let us use the GPL). Besides, wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason?
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        > wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason? Exactly. When I wrote the original comment, I didn't remember Netscape invented its own license.
    - tzs 15y ago
      There are two potential problems with this. 1. Given an implicit patent license between A and B, and a subsequent sale of A's patents to C, is there an implicit license between C and B? It's certainly not obvious that there would be such a license, as the basis of the original implied license between A and B is A's acting in a way that only obeys licenses A is subject to if A licenses out A's patents. C would not be in that position, and so it is harder to find implied licensing by C. 2. If there is an implicit license between C and B, what is its scope? It is quite possible that such a license would be limited to existing products that are practicing the patents.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        If I give you an irrevocable right to use my summer home and then I sell it to someone else, I must disclose to the new buyer the fact you have the right I gave you. The rights granted by the GPLv2 are similarly irrevocable - when Oracle acquired Sun and MySQL, our ability to continue forking and redistributing the GPL-licensed code was never in question. Quite relevant, BTW, is that Oracle continued to distribute MySQL's code under the GPL, and so Oracle also granted use of every patent that covers the code they acquired. Since the grant extends to derived versions (or it wouldn't be possible to license them similarly), it also covers forks released under GPL. GPL is, perhaps, Stallman's most brilliant hack.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - khuey 15y ago
    The Netscape Public License contains a patent grant, AIUI.
fleitz 15y ago
Won't be either, watch for Moto and every other device manufacturer (save Apple who has a cross licensing agreement) that ships a browser on a phone to have to pay $22.50 to MSFT.

I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?

by naner 15y ago

I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?

rbanffy 15y ago

As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Chrome, OTOH, may have some problems. Also, it's unlikely Chrome will be Microsoft's target - it's more likely Android will. Chrome is much less of a threat to Microsoft's future and Android includes a WebKit-based browser.

naner 15y ago
As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Regardless the license, aren't they still vulnerable to claims of patent violation?
- simonster 15y ago
  Some licenses explicitly state that contributors license relevant software patents that they control. Whether GPL 2.1 includes a patent grant is unclear, but the Mozilla Public License certainly does.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
>As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Does the GPL contain a patent grant and/or indemnification clause? I think only the GPL v3 does which wasn't around then.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  As was discussed a hundred times, GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license (because it's impossible to grant the required rights without granting the usage of the patented technology and not granting those rights is a license violation).
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license Has been tested in court? I think the answer is no. The logic Stallman brings up seems valid, though.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      I think it wasn't, but I think the reasoning is strong enough to prevent it form ever being tested. It's easier to settle.
  - mbreese 15y ago
    An explicit grant is much better than an implicit one (and is one reason why the university where I did my grad work refused to let us use the GPL). Besides, wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason?
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason? Exactly. When I wrote the original comment, I didn't remember Netscape invented its own license.
  - tzs 15y ago
    There are two potential problems with this. 1. Given an implicit patent license between A and B, and a subsequent sale of A's patents to C, is there an implicit license between C and B? It's certainly not obvious that there would be such a license, as the basis of the original implied license between A and B is A's acting in a way that only obeys licenses A is subject to if A licenses out A's patents. C would not be in that position, and so it is harder to find implied licensing by C. 2. If there is an implicit license between C and B, what is its scope? It is quite possible that such a license would be limited to existing products that are practicing the patents.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      If I give you an irrevocable right to use my summer home and then I sell it to someone else, I must disclose to the new buyer the fact you have the right I gave you. The rights granted by the GPLv2 are similarly irrevocable - when Oracle acquired Sun and MySQL, our ability to continue forking and redistributing the GPL-licensed code was never in question. Quite relevant, BTW, is that Oracle continued to distribute MySQL's code under the GPL, and so Oracle also granted use of every patent that covers the code they acquired. Since the grant extends to derived versions (or it wouldn't be possible to license them similarly), it also covers forks released under GPL. GPL is, perhaps, Stallman's most brilliant hack.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- khuey 15y ago
  The Netscape Public License contains a patent grant, AIUI.

fleitz 15y ago

Won't be either, watch for Moto and every other device manufacturer (save Apple who has a cross licensing agreement) that ships a browser on a phone to have to pay $22.50 to MSFT.