Copyleft/guide Changeset - 1a3e221152c4

Changeset - 1a3e221152c4

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

2020-pull-requests/02

0 1 0

Richard Fontana - 9 years ago 2015-04-03 00:41:22
fontana@sharpeleven.org

Uncommented material on implied patent licenses and GPLv3 sec. 11
definition of "patent license", with added sentence noting final
paragraph of sec. 11.

1 file changed with 6 insertions and 6 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
 granted by conveyance.  The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
 the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
 The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
 confined to agreements formally identified or classified as patent licenses.
 GPLv3~\S11\P3  makes this clear by defining ``patent
 license,'' for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``any express
 agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
 (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
 sue for patent infringement)''
 % FIXME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.
 % The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
 % implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth paragraphs
 % of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit promises that purport
 % to be legally enforceable.
 The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
 implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth paragraphs
 of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit promises that purport
 to be legally enforceable. The final paragraph of section 11 explicitly
 preserves the availability of patent licenses arising by implication or
 operation of law.
 GPLv3~\S11\P5 is commonly called GPLv3's downstream shielding provision.  It
 responds particularly to the problem of exclusive deals between patent
 holders and distributors, which threaten to distort the free software
 distribution system in a manner adverse to developers and users.  The
 fundamental idea is to make a trade-off between assuring a patent license for
 downstream and making  (possibly patent-encumbered) CCS publicly available.
 Simply put, in nearly all cases in which the ``knowingly relying'' test is
 met, the patent license will indeed not be sublicensable or generally
 available to all on free terms.  If, on the other hand, the patent license is
 generally available under terms consistent with the requirements of the GPL,

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)