From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751199AbWJAPp4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:45:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751196AbWJAPp4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:45:56 -0400 Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:47078 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbWJAPpz (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:45:55 -0400 Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement From: James Bottomley To: tridge@samba.org Cc: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <17695.24581.587794.831888@samba.org> References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.46192.432673.743783@samba.org> <1159515086.3880.79.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.57123.749163.204216@samba.org> <1159559443.9543.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17694.5933.159694.454938@samba.org> <1159628796.9543.69.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17695.24581.587794.831888@samba.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:45:50 -0500 Message-Id: <1159717550.3542.3.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 16:28 +1000, tridge@samba.org wrote: > > > from. The wording in GPLv2 is: > > > > > > If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your > > > obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, > > > then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. > > > For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > > > redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies > > > directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could > > > satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from > > > distribution of the Program. > > > > This means if you try to enforce royalties on a patent in a piece of > > GPLv2 software, you and everyone else lose the right to distribute it. > > However, to enforce or license royalty free is an existing choice. The > > damage caused by making the programme undistributable is assessable > > against the value of the patent. > > I think you would have a hard time convincing a judge that "permit > royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly > or indirectly through you" applies only to "right now", and you can > reserve the right to start charging royalties or other enforcements at > a later date. Erm ... I think you'll find there's already case law precedent on that: the SCO case. The question there was could SCO sue IBM for copyright infringement after having distributed the kernel from their website. The answer, from the judge in the case, was yes. James