decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I disagree about GPL-2 patent protection | 438 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I disagree about GPL-2 patent protection
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:55 PM EDT
Patent protection by the GPL-2 is not clear. That was one of the main reasons for the push for the GPL-3. For example (from 2004):
FSF lawyer recommends express patent license for GPL, BSD

Ravicher conceded that there was a "grey area" around the question of what patent rights are implied in open source licenses.

However, backed by Red Hat senior vice president, Mark Webbink, he said the inclusion of express patent licenses would eliminate that possibility.

Here's what a law firm has to say:
The goal of GPL 3 is to bring the concepts of GPL 2 into the modern era by addressing certain of GPL 2's loopholes and omissions. In large part, GPL 2 did not provide patent protection for software because it wasn't needed. At the time of GPL 2's release in 1991, it addressed proprietary software head-on by its mere existence.
My point is that it is a legal grey area. To be safe, as Mark Webblink (of Groklaw fame) said, you want to also have an explicit patent license. That's what passing the TCK test gives you.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )