| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <17692.57123.749163.204216@samba.org> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:53:55 +1000 From: tridge@...ba.org To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com> Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement James, > > If the "entire patent portfolio" consists of a small group of patents > > which specifically deal with what the code has been posted by the > > company deals with, then sure. > > So we agree that the statement is true for a company that has only a > software patent portfolio. No, we don't :) The company can consist of only a patent portfolio, but additionally all of those patents (ie. the "entire patent portfolio") would need to be implemented by the program being distributed them. That caveat is important, and changes it from a misleading statement to a true statement. It also is a statement which is true for the GPLv2, which makes it not such a useful statement to make when considering the relative merits of the two licenses. I'd also like to note that I don't have much sympathy for companies that consist of only a patent portfolio. They are pretty much scum in my view. If they don't make any products at all and live on only patent revenue then the world would be better off without them :-) Cheers, Tridge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists