Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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? I wouldn't put it that way. GPL means that the copyright holder has done anything he can reasonably be expected to do to make the software free. The problem with patents is that one can violate them unknowingly simply by independently inventing the patented algorithm again without knowing that somebody patented it. If Debian were to stop distributing software we (or the author) knew for sure contained no algorithm with a valid patent on it, there wouldn't be a single line of code left in souce/main. Therefore, in the real world, we have to make do with the lesser requirement that there can't be any COPYRIGHT problems with using and distributing the software freely. > :( 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. Not exactly. A revocation clause means that it can be illegal for me to distribute the software because the author THINKS there is a patent problem and therefore has revoked his license. A free license means that it is legal for me to distribute the software UNLESS there IS a patent problem - and the copyright holder is not the one who judges whether there is one or not. (In the case where the copyright holder is also the patent owner if could probably be argued in court that his putting the program under a free copyright license implies that he also grants the necessary patent licenses to do whatever the copyright license claims to allow.) -- Henning Makholm
