6 ms·

The essence of point 7 of the GPL applies to every piece of software covered by patents you don't own or license – other people's patents can force you to do a

The essence of point 7 of the GPL applies to every piece of software covered by patents you don't own or license – other people's patents can force you to do a lot of things against your will. Even if a more permissive BSD or MIT license were used, you could still be prevented from distributing due to patent rulings. In any case, many popular open-source encoders are also under either GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. Examples include libx264, libmp3lame, libfdk_aac, libfaac. The license hasn't prevented them being very useful to many people.

jwr 13y ago
> [...] other people's patents can force you to do a lot of things against your will. Even if a more permissive BSD or MIT license were used, you could still be prevented from distributing due to patent rulings. That is true. But in that case it is not the license that prevents me from distributing and I can negotiate with the patent holders, pay royalties and have the problem resolved. The anti-patent clause in the GPLv2 prevents that: even if I get all the patent licensing in place, I cannot distribute the software if I cannot pass the same rights onto others. That is the whole point of it: as I understand it, it is a tool to fight the freedom battle. > In any case, many popular open-source encoders are also under either GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. Examples include libx264, libmp3lame, libfdk_aac, libfaac. The license hasn't prevented them being very useful to many people That is also true. I'm just providing a different point of view, one which you might not have heard about: many commercial products cannot include those libraries because of the legal risk. I will not respond to people that shout "FUD" without any arguments. What I wrote was not a rant, and was based on my experience in several companies, each of which got legal advice about this. So, if you believe I'm wrong, please imagine for a moment that I'm building tablets (hence, "distributing" software), I have licensed all the relevant patents (thus, I pay royalties) and describe how you think Section 7 of the GPLv2 permits me to distribute software that requires payment of royalties. EDIT: after reading all the (unnecessarily heated) responses, I think I will have to draw some diagrams. People seem to misunderstand the problem. Again: with many other licenses I can license the patents, and the patent license will cover all my (and my users') usage. With GPLv2 this is not possible, because Section 7 requires that no restrictions be placed on anyone. In other words: yes, it is true that patents are problem for all licenses. No, it is not true that GPLv2 is equivalent to BSD/MIT/other licenses in this regard.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  You could acquire a license that automatically propogates with the GPL code, but it is likely to be expensive... Edited to add: it occurs to me that adding such an ability to RAND requirements might be a very interesting half measure.
- belorn 13y ago
  If you are under obligations that do not allow recipients to distribute the program, doing so anyway will put you under liability. If you are under contract that says you can not use a patent within a BSD licensed software (that grants redistribution), you will suddenly not be able to distribute software as under BSD license. The contact forbids you, and if you remove the bsd copyright notice then BSD license forbid you. If this happen often to you, my advice is to not get into contractual agreements that contradicts with what you are trying to do. > because Section 7 requires that no restrictions be placed on anyone. False. Section 7 require that recipient of the software can redistribute the software. The lawyer for the European Commission was very explicit in that analysis.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    I don't think you have understood what jwr is talking about. The situation is this: You have some software you wish to distribute in binary form (with source available). You also have a patent licence that allows you (and only you) to distribute software covered by that patent. If the software is BSD licensed there is no problem. The licence allows you to distribute the software, and so does your patent licence. Other people who receive the software from you will need to get a patent licence if they want to distribute it, but that is their problem. The BSD licence says nothing about your responsibility to ensure that recipients can also distribute the software - only that you have to convey the copyright notice and the text of the licence. The bit at the start of the BSD licences saying that redistribution is permitted etc is not a condition of redistribution. The conditions are the 2 or 3 numbered conditions. If the software is GPL licensed as soon as you try to distribute the software to somebody who doesn't have the same distribution patent licence as you then the original GPL licence becomes invalid and you can no longer distribute the software because you have violated clause 7 since the recipients of your software are not able to redistribute it. Now I'm not a lawyer and I don't even live in the USA, so I can't talk about the validity of the restrictions the GPL tries to apply here, but that is the situation we are talking about.

jwr 13y ago

> [...] other people's patents can force you to do a lot of things against your will. Even if a more permissive BSD or MIT license were used, you could still be prevented from distributing due to patent rulings. That is true. But in that case it is not the license that prevents me from distributing and I can negotiate with the patent holders, pay royalties and have the problem resolved. The anti-patent clause in the GPLv2 prevents that: even if I get all the patent licensing in place, I cannot distribute the software if I cannot pass the same rights onto others. That is the whole point of it: as I understand it, it is a tool to fight the freedom battle. > In any case, many popular open-source encoders are also under either GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. Examples include libx264, libmp3lame, libfdk_aac, libfaac. The license hasn't prevented them being very useful to many people That is also true. I'm just providing a different point of view, one which you might not have heard about: many commercial products cannot include those libraries because of the legal risk. I will not respond to people that shout "FUD" without any arguments. What I wrote was not a rant, and was based on my experience in several companies, each of which got legal advice about this. So, if you believe I'm wrong, please imagine for a moment that I'm building tablets (hence, "distributing" software), I have licensed all the relevant patents (thus, I pay royalties) and describe how you think Section 7 of the GPLv2 permits me to distribute software that requires payment of royalties. EDIT: after reading all the (unnecessarily heated) responses, I think I will have to draw some diagrams. People seem to misunderstand the problem. Again: with many other licenses I can license the patents, and the patent license will cover all my (and my users') usage. With GPLv2 this is not possible, because Section 7 requires that no restrictions be placed on anyone. In other words: yes, it is true that patents are problem for all licenses. No, it is not true that GPLv2 is equivalent to BSD/MIT/other licenses in this regard.

dllthomas 13y ago
You could acquire a license that automatically propogates with the GPL code, but it is likely to be expensive... Edited to add: it occurs to me that adding such an ability to RAND requirements might be a very interesting half measure.
belorn 13y ago
If you are under obligations that do not allow recipients to distribute the program, doing so anyway will put you under liability. If you are under contract that says you can not use a patent within a BSD licensed software (that grants redistribution), you will suddenly not be able to distribute software as under BSD license. The contact forbids you, and if you remove the bsd copyright notice then BSD license forbid you. If this happen often to you, my advice is to not get into contractual agreements that contradicts with what you are trying to do. > because Section 7 requires that no restrictions be placed on anyone. False. Section 7 require that recipient of the software can redistribute the software. The lawyer for the European Commission was very explicit in that analysis.
- anon1385 13y ago
  I don't think you have understood what jwr is talking about. The situation is this: You have some software you wish to distribute in binary form (with source available). You also have a patent licence that allows you (and only you) to distribute software covered by that patent. If the software is BSD licensed there is no problem. The licence allows you to distribute the software, and so does your patent licence. Other people who receive the software from you will need to get a patent licence if they want to distribute it, but that is their problem. The BSD licence says nothing about your responsibility to ensure that recipients can also distribute the software - only that you have to convey the copyright notice and the text of the licence. The bit at the start of the BSD licences saying that redistribution is permitted etc is not a condition of redistribution. The conditions are the 2 or 3 numbered conditions. If the software is GPL licensed as soon as you try to distribute the software to somebody who doesn't have the same distribution patent licence as you then the original GPL licence becomes invalid and you can no longer distribute the software because you have violated clause 7 since the recipients of your software are not able to redistribute it. Now I'm not a lawyer and I don't even live in the USA, so I can't talk about the validity of the restrictions the GPL tries to apply here, but that is the situation we are talking about.