I understood you were quoting the GPL-2. I understand the argument of a
implied patent grant in the GPL-2. In fact,
we seem to agree that GPL-2 patent
protection is ambiguous. Our own Mark Webbink agrees too. He
recommends getting an explicit a patent license if
you use the GPL-2.
Other
lawyers in addition to Mark question the patent protection
provided by the GPL-2:
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.
I'm not
saying the quote above is right. I'm saying it shows the depth of legal
uncertainty about GPL-2 patent protection. My point is that patent protection
in the GPL-2 is not certain. It is therefore unsafe. You don't want to rely on
it if you can help it because when push comes to shove it might not protect you
the way you want. The TCK is what provides the explicit patent protection that
Mark and other lawyers suggest you get.
If, as we both agree, the patent
protection offered by the GPL-2 is legally ambiguous, it makes absolutely no
sense to suggest Google should have relied on that ambiguous protection when
they made Android. It is like suggesting someone switch to a car with
unreliable brakes as a step up in safety. Then you exclaim "it's not certain a
car with unreliable brakes is going to crash!" The crash being uncertain does
not magically make the car with faulty brakes safe. If you want as safe a ride
as possible then you should use a car that has reliable brakes. The GPL-2 does
not give you reliable patent protection.
---
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 | # ]
| 
