| 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: <1159628796.9543.69.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:06:36 -0500 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com> To: tridge@...ba.org Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 17:05 +1000, tridge@...ba.org wrote: > I just can't see where you get this interpretation of the GPLv2 > from. The wording in GPLv2 is: > > If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your > obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, > then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. > For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies > directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could > satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from > distribution of the Program. This means if you try to enforce royalties on a patent in a piece of GPLv2 software, you and everyone else lose the right to distribute it. However, to enforce or license royalty free is an existing choice. The damage caused by making the programme undistributable is assessable against the value of the patent. v3 removes this choice by making the patent automatically licensed as soon as you distribute, hence the choice is taken away. James - 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