4 ms·

>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

>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.
    - tzs 15y ago
      (Upvoting you to try to cancel out the idiotic down vote someone gave you) You can't really make analogies to land, because estates in land are special in law. (I'm going to discuss things from the point of view of US law. This will be somewhat applicable in other Common Law countries, although details vary, and the devil is in the details. Someone else will have to cover Civil Law countries). A patent license would be covered under contract, not under estates in land. Whether a patent license is binding against future patent owners depends on the nature of the license. If it is an actual license, then there is a good chance it will bind future patent owners. If, however, it is characterized as a covenant not to sue, then there is a good chance that it will NOT bind future patent owners. There are no hard and fast rules here--the case law is murky, with cases both supporting and contradicting nearly everything I said in the previous paragraph. Non-exclusive licenses are more likely to be characterized as covenants not to sue. (And that's explicit non-exclusive licenses--we are on even shakier ground with an implied non-exclusive license). As you note, it is relevant that Oracle continues to distribute the GPL code they bought. This means that the conditions that might imply an implicit patent license in GPLv2 apply to them. The case that is interesting, and much more uncertain, is where party A releases GPLv2 code covered by a patent they control, and later they sell the patent to party B, and B does NOT distribute any GPLv2 products that use the patent, and so the only way to find that B is providing an implicit patent license is to find that they are bound by such licenses that A granted. In general, it is simply bad practice to rely on implied licenses. Even if a court finds that they survive a transfer, there is a serious risk that the scope of the transferred license will be limited to those who already had a license at the time of the transfer. A good software license, free or non-free, should be explicit about patents.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
khuey 15y ago
The Netscape Public License contains a patent grant, AIUI.

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.
  - tzs 15y ago
    (Upvoting you to try to cancel out the idiotic down vote someone gave you) You can't really make analogies to land, because estates in land are special in law. (I'm going to discuss things from the point of view of US law. This will be somewhat applicable in other Common Law countries, although details vary, and the devil is in the details. Someone else will have to cover Civil Law countries). A patent license would be covered under contract, not under estates in land. Whether a patent license is binding against future patent owners depends on the nature of the license. If it is an actual license, then there is a good chance it will bind future patent owners. If, however, it is characterized as a covenant not to sue, then there is a good chance that it will NOT bind future patent owners. There are no hard and fast rules here--the case law is murky, with cases both supporting and contradicting nearly everything I said in the previous paragraph. Non-exclusive licenses are more likely to be characterized as covenants not to sue. (And that's explicit non-exclusive licenses--we are on even shakier ground with an implied non-exclusive license). As you note, it is relevant that Oracle continues to distribute the GPL code they bought. This means that the conditions that might imply an implicit patent license in GPLv2 apply to them. The case that is interesting, and much more uncertain, is where party A releases GPLv2 code covered by a patent they control, and later they sell the patent to party B, and B does NOT distribute any GPLv2 products that use the patent, and so the only way to find that B is providing an implicit patent license is to find that they are bound by such licenses that A granted. In general, it is simply bad practice to rely on implied licenses. Even if a court finds that they survive a transfer, there is a serious risk that the scope of the transferred license will be limited to those who already had a license at the time of the transfer. A good software license, free or non-free, should be explicit about patents.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

khuey 15y ago

The Netscape Public License contains a patent grant, AIUI.