[Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk

[Jan Rychter]

Mark Spencer:
> The anti-patent clause was dropped ages ago.

What do you mean? I can still see it in the LICENSE file in Asterisk.

--J.

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20031004/d08a5e65/attachment.pgp