Re: YAL (Yet another license)
John Hasler <email@example.com> writes:
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > hm, does the gpl require the distributor of a derived work to give
> > licence to all applicable patents they own?
| You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
| exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible
| for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Couldn't owning an applicable patent and *not* granting patent
licenses to it be construed as "imposing further restriction on
the recipient's exercise of the rights granted" by the GPL?
It's not clear-cut, but I suppose it's at least a *possible*