While the deal is being analysed for GPLv2 compliance, it's a useful
example of a more general case worth thinking of
regarding GPLv3.
The problem to be considered is: what if company A distributes some
GPL'd software, and company B announces that they will not sue
customers of company A. This creates a situation where some
users are safe from patent litigation, and some are in danger - and
company A now has an interest in sustaining or maximising that danger.
It's probably safe to assume that this will only happen in cases
where a business agreement exists between companies A and B.
The goal is that we wouldn't want to discourage anyone from
obtaining patent protection for all users of the software, but we
mustn't accept people stopping short of this in ways that give them
a commercial advantage or an incentive to increase danger for others.
Some interesting details from the Novell/Microsoft issue are that
Microsoft are not distributing any GPL'd software directly. They
will instead be distributing coupons for
Novell's GNU+Linux
distribution. Also, Novell are saying that the patent protection is
not coming from them, instead it is coming from Microsoft direct to
the users of Novell products.
Here's what
the current
discussion draft says about patents: (from Section 11)
You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and
conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under this
License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting party
will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's
essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed,
against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this
License. If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all
recipients, including recipients of works based on the covered work,
not to assert any of your essential patent claims in the covered
work.
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a
non-sublicensable patent license that is not generally available to
all, you must either (1) act to shield downstream users against the
possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects
you, or (2) ensure that anyone can copy the Corresponding Source of
the covered work, free of charge and under the terms of this
License, through a publicly available network server or other
readily accessible means.
Will that wording prevent companies making patent deals that shaft
the free software community? What improvements should be made to
that wording? Any suggestions, submit them
to gplv3.fsf.org,
and see FSFE's
GPLv3 page for more general information.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan,
Support free software: Join FSFE's Fellowship
