Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence
Hi,
I have a question I have not been able to get a conclusion to, regarding
the compatibility of the licence Cisco have given to their EIGRP
patents, by way of their declaration under the IETF "IPR" process. That
declaration being:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2236/
The relevant grant/licence text being:
"For any claims of any Cisco patents that are necessary for practicing
the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol specification
<draft-savage-eigrp-01>, any party will have the right to use any such
patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with
reciprocity, to implement and fully comply with the specification.
The reasonable non-discriminatory terms are: Cisco will not assert any
patents owned or controlled by Cisco against any party for making,
using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product that
implements the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
specification <draft-savage-eigrp-01>, provided, however that Cisco
retains the right to assert its patents (including the right to claim
past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or
controls (either directly or indirectly) against Cisco or any of
Cisco's affiliates or successors in title or against any products or
services of Cisco or any products or services of any of Cisco's
affiliates either alone or in combination with other products or
services.
Royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who prefers that
option."
A GPLv2+ implementation of EIGRP exists, which itself depends on other
pieces of GPLv2+ code in Quagga. The question that's been raised with me
is whether or not a free software project such as Quagga could
distribute such an implementation? Are there any compatibility issues
between the patent licence and the GPLv2 licence to worry about? In
particular, to any degree that would cause a problem for a mainstream
Linux distributions such as Debian?
I've had some exchanges with a number of people about this. Including
luminaries in the free software world, legal experts around free
software, as well as quick and informal advice from a solicitor I know.
What I've gotten from those exchanges suggests there is little reason to
be concerned about the Cisco patent or the licence.
It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright
and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is
that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential
royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require unconditional,
non-revocable patent grant.
"7. ... 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."
(Personally, I don't have a moral problem with a patent holder retaining
the right to sue anyone who sues them over patents; but my opinion on
that doesn't have a bearing on the GPLv2).
So, would distributing a GPLv2+ EIGRP implementation which, in turn,
depends on other GPLv2+ licensed code belonging to a diverse set of
copyright holders, cause any issues for Debian?
Does the answer to that question change in any way if it is the GPLv3+
instead?
Thanks,
--
Paul Jakma | paul@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
The faster we go, the rounder we get.
-- The Grateful Dead
Reply to: