Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
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
Reply to: