linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <451EEFC2.4090600@rebelhomicide.demon.nl>
Date:	Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:29:22 +0200
From:	Michiel de Boer <x@...elhomicide.demon.nl>
To:	David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com>
CC:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>, tridge@...ba.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, James Bottomley wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, this is the whole point.  Today, you can distribute GPLv2 packages
>> without much patent worry ... if you develop GPLv2 packages, that's
>> different, but if you simply act as a conduit, you're not going to have
>> too much trouble..  If I take the broad interpretation that I give a
>> licence to every patent practised by every package I distribute, then I
>> don't know what my liability might be until I've done an IP assessment
>> of everything that's distributed from the website.  That means not just
>> what I'm working on, but also what support put up there to assist a
>> customer, and also what the engineers are putting up in their private
>> areas.
>
> this is especially relavent for companies that have formerly been 
> willing to act as mirrors for free software projects. now the act of 
> mirroring debian means that any patent they own could be comprimised 
> by a random debian developer adding a patch to any of 19000 packages 
> that implements that patent 

Conversely, is it possible that the 'random debian developer' could be 
sued for patent infringement if he isn't protected by the GPL?
Besides, software patents are evil, period.

Regards, Michiel de Boer
-
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/