--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb? |
|
Date: |
Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:21:27 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
pan 0.120 (Plate of Shrimp) |
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:15:48 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
> Any person who distributes GPL3 code cannot subsequently sue the recipient
> of that code - or anybody else - for any alleged patent violations because
> the GPL3 requires that or else that person is in violation of the license
> which is the only right that person has to distribute that software.
Interesting. I am involved quite a bit in interoperability and the legal
issues are quickly making the technical issues seem trivial in comparison.
I am a bit worried myself as I used to work for a company writing open
source linux drivers (but not in the kernel or any distros) implementing
patented protocols and algorithms with permission, under the gpl2 (or any
later version), just trying to do the right thing, currently I and a
couple of others are still distributing them (and won't be suing anyone
for using it!). I think the patents have since been sold. Who knows what
the legal consequences are, it might be a good idea to stop distributing
them, which seems somewhat counter to the goals of software freedom to me.
On the other hand, I like the idea of protecting the users (and other
coders) from patent lawsuits so updating the gpl to version 3 seems
tempting too but is it my right to do so?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
confirm 23d4baa95cd7a45ad94c6a9dcbcdd0723133f2a9 |
If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is
spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--- End Message ---