Re: gEDA-user: GPL-v3 for Open CAD

[Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Peter TB Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:53:55 +0800, Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> To make this point clear to get companies like IBM to support GPL V3
>> they had to put in clauses that excepted them from the IP rules.
>
> [citation needed].  This is pure FUD.

From section 11 on patents.
"""A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License."""

This clause puts legal binding to patents that may or may not be part
of software in question, because they may relate to a patent that
really belongs with the software.
The problem is not in the intent of the licence, it's with the Lawyers
that will use this clause to get rights to another partly related
patent.

Contrived example.   I have a few patents, which include a home
teleporter, a home teleporter control system and a home teleporter
interface patent that I own.  I write GPLv3 software to implement my
interface patent.  Cause i felt the interface should free for anyone
to develop the interfaces, so this grants a rolity free licence on
that interface patent.  Fine and dandy, i intended the interface to be
free.  Competor A comes along and uses the interface software to
develop my teleporter in their varient of hardware, but it's missing a
binary to make the teleporter work!  So they sue me, claming that this
consumer-product which was developed using GPLv3 code has a locked
binary locking it down and preventing its use.  What they can't do
that its my teleporter.....   But the clause in GPL gives them a leg
to stand on in court and competor A's Lawyers and mine fight it out
and We don't know which is going to win the legal battle.  Because
they used my GPLv3 teleporter interface control software, freely as
intended by the GPLv3, but because to make my interface to a
teleporter useful it could be claimed that they have rights to all of
my teleporter patents referencing the interface patent.

Now under GPL v2  I could have kept a key software component of my
teleporter and protected my hardware. And the lawyers of competor A
would have no leg to stand on and a teleporter that wouldn't work, but
not under the GPLv3 cause of the anti tivo clauses, and because this
is a home teleporter.  If my patents and devices were for non-consumer
electronics, that is for businesses, and government only.  I could
still could out my magic rom and then the competor would have to at
lease license it from me.  This is the Business exception I mentioned.

Not targeted with the business cluse.
IBM makes is money from mainframe and business services, not covered
buy tivo clauses,  no money from consumer devices, it sold off the
thinkpads.

Not targeted because not affected.
Red hat makes it's money from services to businesses support contracts et all.

Targeted because of consumer products clause.
Tivo make money from selling its hardware to consumers

These are loopholes for big business, sorry.

>
>> Also see this clause
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing
>>
>> you cant link a GPL v3 library into non GPL v3 work.... this is bull.
>
> But you couldn't link a GPLv2+ library (e.g. libgeda) into a non GPLv2+
> work either.
>

Sorry the bull I am claiming there is that a GPL v2 work can't use a
GPLv3 work.  There both the damn GPL!  Why do i have to upgrade GPLv2
to include with GPLv3.....

>> I am a stonch proponent of open software, but when the licence makes
>> inroads to invalidate the authors rights that are not part of the
>> software they developed....  It's going tooo far.
>>
>> I support licenses like BSD, Apachee, Apple open software, GPL V2 and
>> MIT, and other permissive licenses.
>
> I'm never, ever coming to you for advice on software licensing.

And you shouldn't  I am not a lawyer,  but you should see your patent
lawyer first to make sure any patent you do collect royalties on are
suffiucently seperate from your GPLv3 software.

>
>> If you want to licence something as GPL v3 you need do a dual release
>> with a closed license like QT is dual licensed.  Cause frankly no sane
>> business with any IP should develop GPL V3 code.
>
> By your definition, Red Hat is either insane or has no IP.

No they just have no rights to collect royalties on that IP (patent) anymore.
Also there business model is not related to licencing their IP nor
preventing others from using their ip, because their profit is from
services.

>
> Personally, I quite like the idea of being able to develop a library of
> useful code that only Free software can use.  If you want to allow non-Free
> code to link against your library, you can use the LGPLv3, which
> specifically permits linking.

I see it differently,  and would use the LGPLv3 for a library when i
have no patents at all, and the LGPLv2 if I have patents.


But that is incompatable to a GPLv3 application...  so my library
can't be used without relicencing,  which I would relicence to a gpl
compatable licence cause I'm sick of GPL/Anti-GPL for open software.

>
> As far as linking restrictions go, there is no change between the LGPLv2
> and LGPLv3, or between the GPLv2 and GPLv3.  The issue has been around for
> 20 years.
>
GPLv3 changed its difination of a whole work.  Which make including
plugins that are third party even harder.

> It seems like the anti-GPL FUD is disturbingly strong on this list.

Just anti v3 from me.

>
> Peter
>

I have a feeling that part of the differences we have may be in how
the UK and the USA treat their patent systems.

Steve


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user