Changeset - dc0714a3ef85
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 9 years ago 2015-02-02 14:56:03
bkuhn@ebb.org
Formatting change: use itemize here instead.
1 file changed with 8 insertions and 2 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -3696,31 +3696,37 @@ In general, GPLv3 provides for two classes of patent commitments:
 
  programs regardless of the domestic patent law in any particular system or
 
  locale.
 
\end{itemize}
 

	
 
The following two subsections discuss in order each of the above mentioned
 
classes of patent commitments.
 

	
 
\subsection{The Contributor's Explicit Patent License}
 

	
 
Specifically, the ideal might have been for GPLv3 to feature a patent license
 
grant triggered by all acts of distribution of GPLv3-covered works.  The FSF
 
considered it during the GPLv3 drafting process, but many patent-holding
 
companies objected to this policy.  They have made two objections: (1) the
 
companies objected to this policy.  They have made two objections:
 

	
 
\begin{enumerate}
 
    \item the
 
far-reaching impact of the patent license grant on the patent holder is
 
disproportionate to the act of merely distributing code without modification
 
or transformation, and (2) it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast
 
or transformation, and
 

	
 
    \item it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast
 
patent assets to exercise requisite diligence in reviewing all the
 
GPL-covered software that it provides to others.  Some expressed particular
 
concern about the consequences of ``inadvertent'' distribution.
 
\end{enumerate}
 

	
 
The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
 
``disproportionate'',  that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since
 
software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for
 
aggression against free software developers is an egregious act (thus
 
preventing that act cannot be unfair). 
 

	
 
However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense.  A
 
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs.  It would
 
be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
 
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
 
and passes on a new version of the distribution.  Moreover, this question
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)