[Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk

[Mark Spencer]

The anti-patent clause was dropped ages ago.

Mark

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Uriel Carrasquilla wrote:

> So, is Astrisk being changed to an OSI-compliant license without the
> "anti-patent" clause?
> Uriel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Jan Rychter
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:27 PM
> To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk
>
>
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Spencer <markster at digium.com> writes:
> [...]
>  Mark> No problem, it's easy to get confused :) I would, however, take
>  Mark> issue with the GPL being "evil".  It's not my *ideal* license,
>  Mark> but it certainly is good enough.
>
> Just for the reference, while we're at it. GPL does have an issue, which
> can cause problems to some people or companies. It is often overlooked,
> because the "open source" issues seem much more controversial.
>
> Having worked with GPL software quite a bit, also in the commercial
> world, and having gotten some legal advice, I believe that the
> "anti-patent" clauses in the GPL and LGPL are quite possibly the biggest
> problem preventing the use of GPL'd software by commercial entities,
> much bigger than the "pass on the source and the rights" requirement.
>
> An excerpt from the GPL:
>
>      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.
>  [...]
>      8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
>    certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
>    original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
>    may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
>    those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
>    countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
>    the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
>
> As I understand it (and as my legal counsel advises me) this effectively
> means that if I distribute GPL/LGPL code, I have to make sure that its
> distribution and re-distribution is not restricted by patents (or other
> restrictions).
>
> If the code in question contains parts which some patents lay claim to,
> restricting distribution, then I must not distribute the code at
> all. Furthermore, by distributing the code I breach the GPL and expose
> myself to legal threat of a lawsuit from the FSF.
>
> It is needless to mention that it is impossible to me to verify that no
> patents (worldwide!) lay claim to the code I'm distributing and impose
> restrictions upon its distribution. Sooner or later I'm going to find
> out that I do not comply with the GPL, because I distribute GPLd code
> even though there are patent restrictions that apply to it.
>
> An example of a particularly clear case of this problem is the XviD code
> (http://www.xvid.org/), which is GPL-licensed. It seems to me that the
> authors (copyright holders, to be precise) may distribute the software
> under any license they choose, but nobody else is allowed to
> re-distribute it, because they would be violating section 7 of the GPL,
> as the MPEG-4 compression is (in some countries) covered by patents
> requiring royalties to be paid.
>
> This is an issue which is very often overlooked in the hot GPL
> debates. However, in the commercial world, it is possibly the most
> important one.
>
> Conclusion (IMHO of course): if you have the choice, use a license that
> is OSI-compliant but does not have the "anti-patent" clause. Or has it
> phrased differently.
>
> --J.
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>