\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}

 \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}

\item any software other than that licensed under the GPLv2 by the patent

  holder, and

\item any party that does not comply with the GPLv2

with respect to the licensed software.

\end{enumerate}

\newcommand{\compB}{$\mathcal{B}$}

\newcommand{\compA}{$\mathcal{A}$}

For example, if Company \compA{} has a patent on advanced Web browsing, but

also licenses a Web browsing software program under the GPLv2, then it

cannot assert the patent against any party that takes a license to its

program under the GPLv2. However, if a party uses that program without

complying with the GPLv2, then Company \compA{} can assert, not just copyright

infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party, but also

infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only

extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if

Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program,

Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or

distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's

program is distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant

implied licenses to Company \compA's patent.

This result also reassures companies that they need not fear losing their

proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPLv2 implied patent

license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPLv2's

terms can benefit from the implied patent license. To continue the

example above, Company \compB{} does not receive a free ride on Company

\compA's patent, as Company \compB{} has not licensed-in and then

redistributed Company A's advanced Web browser under the GPLv2. If Company

\compB{} does do that, however, Company \compA{} still has not lost

competitive advantage against Company \compB{}, as Company \compB{} must then,

when it re-distributes Company \compA's program, grant an implied license

to any of its patents that cover the program. Further, if Company \compB{}

relicenses an improved version of Company A's program, it must do so under

the GPLv2, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version

are impliedly licensed to any licensee. As such, the only way Company

\compB{} can benefit from Company \compA's implied patent license, is if it,

itself, distributes Company \compA's software program and grants an

implied patent license to any of its patents that cover that program.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Defending Freedom on Many Fronts}

\section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLv2s4}

strange that a license with the goal of defending users' and programmers'

freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.

However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability

and this termination clause becomes clear.

The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants

license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect.\footnote{In

In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute

Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to

the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and

those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of GPLv2~\S3),

then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for

those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.

negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright

At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF

enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as

quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.

That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply

with the license and respect freedom.

However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software

freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.

MySQL AB, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon

discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software

license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF

would ever consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for

copyright holders to proceed.

\section{GPLv2~\S5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}

\label{GPLv2s5}

GPLv2~\S5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common

confusion about GPLv2\@. Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,

most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with

EULAs. EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring

formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be

valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''

as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.

The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.''  No rights

are transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is a permission

slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited

by copyright law. As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the

licensee is not even required to accept the license.

However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and

distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited. So, the

GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that

you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.

This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different

from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.

An interesting side benefit to GPLv2~\S5 is that the bulk of users of Free

Software are not required to accept the license. Undertaking fair and

unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,

since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by

copyright law. Only when you engage in those activities that might have an

impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur, and the

terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software. In

other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of

freedom.