On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:24:33PM -0400, Dan Ravicher wrote: > And, it is possible to receive a patent license that does not cause a > failure to comply with Section 7. The GPL Section 7 says "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, ..." Therefore, patent licenses which allow royalty-free > redistribution are fine and do not trigger Section 7. Many such > licenses have been granted, such as through standard setting bodies, and > they can even be negotiated with a payment in upfront fees or minimum > annual royalties when necessary. Thus, a patent license in and of > itself does not create a Section 7 problem.
"Minimum annual royalties" doesn't seem "royalty-free". Are there really (many) cases where a single upfront fee granted a person a patent license which allowed everyone who received the work--not just him--to also redistribute it? (That seems strange--if a patent holder seeks to profit from a patent, why would he essentially grant the whole world a patent license for the price of one license?) > This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may > contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to > the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If > you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or > distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the > sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. Isn't it somewhat absurd to say "don't read that!" at the *end* of a message? :) (If you do much communications on publically-archived lists, it would be polite to turn this off. At least it's not in threatening-nastygram-style, as some are ...) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
