Re: Patents and revocation clauses
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 | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: