Re: RTLinux patent

[<owinebar@free-expression.org>]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:31:59AM -0500, owinebar@free-expression.org wrote:
> 
> Fortunately not.  Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL.  If a patent prevents
> you from distributing a GPL'd program, you may not do so.  The DFSG is
> concerned with Copyright, and so does not apply here as long as the DFSG
> is satisfied.
> 
   When you distribute this program, the recipients do not (according to
the patent holders) have the full rights the GPL grants.  They cannot
modify it to run under Windows, Mac, or whatever else (or, more likely,
adapt parts to run under Windows, MacOS, or whatever).  

As you cite #7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that
contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the
conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at
all. 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, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License
would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. 

  This reads to me that if recipients aren't allowed to modify the
software in compliance with the GPL (and only the GPL), then you aren't
allowed to distribute the software.

Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
restrictions, all I see is:    
Derived Works 
     The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software. 

   Where is copyright mentioned?  The fact that the restrictions come from
a separate area of law does not change the fact they are restrictions on
modifications, derived works, or distribution generally.


> Not really.  The patent would have to place restrictions on distribution
> of rtlinux for it to matter.  It doesn't.
> 
   Or any derivative works.  It does.   

   Note I'm not claiming RTLinux is in violation of GPL (I don't know
whether it's a derived work of a GPL'ed work, at least the part that's
covered by the patent license).  But the software's distribution is
plainly governed by the 2 (contradictory) licenses, so you can't just
distribute and say the software's modification, replication,
redistribution, etc, is governed solely by the GPL.

Lynn