On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Clause 7 of the GPL simply states that the right to make copies > > of the covered program does not apply if there's a patent which > > applies to the code and whose owner contests the free distribution > > of the code. > > > > Say that IBM released their code under GPL in the above scenario. > > Company B might still go to court, and they might succesfully argue > > that their patent is valid and applies to the program. However, in the > > same moment the judge decides this, >poof< the GPL effectively > > vanishes from all copies of the program (or at least all copies in the > > same jurisdiction). > > So GPLed becomes non-free, because no license == non-free?
Yup. > > > IBM wouldn't be stuck with having licenced out > > infringing code, so company B wouldn't probably get more out of their > > suit than if there had been a revocation clause which IBM had > > voluntarily invoked. > > :( It sounds like including a patented algorithm in your code could > be tantamount to including a revocation clause in the license you > distribute with the code. True, I'm afraid. That's the bugger about allow algorithms to be patented. What's worse, is that you might not even know the algorithm is patented.. Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/
