Re: Final text of GPL v3
"Steve Langasek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have
do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires
code availability? How does making the source code available help the
First of all the requirement is for *public* availability (even in the case
of private distribution), which is not a requirement of the rest of the
I think it is the ffmpeg situation. They distribute code (which allegedy
cannot violate a patent),
and the end users can download and compile it. I guess the FSF feels that
end users are unlikly to be
sued for this, although AIUI, under US law they can be sued for that. This
only seems to benefit
those people who the patent does not apply, such as people in contries that
do not allow software patents.
Is the meaning here that the Corresponding Source is only "available" if
there are no patents applying to it? That's the only sensible meaning I
extract, but the license seems to go about saying this in a rather obtuse
What does (2) really mean? How can one "arrange to deprive [oneself] of
benefit of the patent license" -- by goading the licensor into suing you?
Otherwise, even if the patent license agreement is terminated on paper,
do you force the patent holder to still treat everyone "fairly"?
Well, in many cases patent licences require continuing royalty payments. I'm
sure that if you start refusing to pay, but continue to use the patent, you
will be sued.
I agree that in the case of a licence involving a flat payment for perpetual
use, this clause
does not do much to level the playing feild, as the patent holder is
unlikely to sue somebody
who has made all applicable payments, even if they have nominally terminated
But, ok; in spite of the above doubts, they've done a pretty good job of
closing the patent loophole, and done so in a way that I think is DFSG-ok.