Re: The license
James LewisMoss writes:
> Say I write a program Y that does process X and release it GPL. I find
> later (after many people download Y that X is patented by company Z.
> Despite Y being GPLed all those people have to stop using it or pay
> company Z some money. The license doesn't mean didly when there are IP
> claims.
Then Z gets a court to order everybody to stop distributing and using Y.
You have no say in the matter. To Z and the court you are just one of many
infringers. However, as long as Z merely claims that their patent on X is
being infringed but does not actually go to court nobody is obligated to do
anything. You may chose to stop using and distributing Y in order to
placate Z while I make a different decision. I might, for example, choose
to call Z's bluff and keep on using Y. And they might back down, having
known all along that they didn't really have a case.
> The clause is even nicer than that. It says that IBM will try before
> telling you sto stop using is to rectify the situation in some other way.
No. It says that if Z sends IBM a letter claiming that the Software
infringes one of Z's patents IBM can decide that there is no point in
spending money defending a piece of non-revenue-generating software and
placate Z by ordering all the users of the Software to destroy it. Not
only does Z then not have to prove that IBM is infringing, but all the
users are denied the opportunity to force Z to do so. I would be forced to
destroy my copies of the software, even though my lawyer and I might be
quite certain that Z's claim is groundless.
> So, in my mind all IBM has done is state explicitly what all other
> licenses basically include implicitly.
All other licenses do not grant the author the right to order all copies
destroyed because he thinks he might be about to be sued.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: