Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Sep 2006 15:36 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
GNU, GPL, Open Source Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen to issue a 'renewed invitation' yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.
Thread beginning with comment 166424
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is the problem again?"
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

"The vast majority of companies residing primarily in USA do. Even some danish software companies have patents in USA. This is necessary to protect themselves in USA."

The USA ia also the largest user of software in the world. So my point still stands. It is too risky for US companies, or companies who do business in the US, to use open source software that is licensed under GPL3, and GPL3 that will do serious damage to, and maybe kill open source in business.

Again, even the Linux kernel developers are saying this now. Not just me.

Edited 2006-09-28 17:09

Reply Parent Score: 1

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

" It is too risky for US companies, or companies who do business in the US, to use "

It's not risk at all to use software under the GPLv3 because it's not an EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"It's not risk at all to use software under the GPLv3 because it's not an EULA."

Yes, it is a EULA. And if you think there is no risk involved in using it, then you haven't read it. If you sue a an open source company for example, for infringing on one of your patents, your license to use software licensed under GPL3 is revoked.

Businesses are simply not going to go for that kind of strongarm tactic. They aren't going to commit themselves to saying "We can never enforce our software patents against any open source software".

The risks of using GPL3 licensed software is too high. Even the kernel developers agree. So does Linus Torvalds.

Reply Parent Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The USA ia also the largest user of software in the world. So my point still stands.

The UK government is also the largest single user of Microsoft software in the world outside the US, and they and MS do business WITHOUT the benefit of software patents being available to British public OR private institutions. So your point is still debatable.

Edited 2006-09-28 17:34

Reply Parent Score: 2

killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

While in EU there isn't (yet) software patents in a true american way, the software isn't itself unprotected. The copyright laws can generally protect IP theft on software, and some bits of software may even be patenteable (algorithms generally can't, but specific implementations as a part of a device might be).
Then again, AFAIK MS is not producing GPL software, so your point is moot.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'd like to see numbers for that ;)

Anyway, you didn't answer why protection was needed in USA.

Besides that, patent clauses aren't the issue with GPL v3.

GPL v2 also containss a patent clause, though implicit.
The difference is the DRM-part.

And of course. If you distribute applications under the GPL, and they are utilizing your patents, then you cannot sue people for distributing applications under the GPL, if these applications are utilizing your patents. That's so logical you cannot disagree without being a complete evil moron.

Reply Parent Score: 2