Anyone in one of the GPLv3 committees?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Jun 01, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
I see that in the patent section, the FSF has not changed the limitation to "software distributers", nor responded in the guide, FAQ or rationale to the many, many comments made on it in the previous draft. For those who don't know the section, here it is: (from section 11) You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007. Is there someone here who has kept a better eye on this? Or is there someone here that is in one of the FSF GPLv3 committees that discussed this? Can someone tell me why this was not changed? |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 11:33 AM EDT |
>Can someone tell me why this was not changed? How do you think that it should have been changed? |
| number6x Jun 01, 2007 11:37 AM EDT |
_sander, Is your point that it is limited to third parties in the software business? If Microsoft, for instance, set up a holding company that did not trade in software only in patent licenses. Then Microsoft gave all its patents to that holding company and that company licensed the use of the patents back to Microsoft. If this third party patent licensing company created an agreement with Novell this section would not cover it. The patent licensing company is not a software distributer. This section only covers third parties in the software distribution business, and would not apply to third parties in the IP licensing business. Those IP licencers are free to offer as many discriminatory third party licensing agreements on GPL V3 software as they want. As long as they never ever distribute software (can't even let employees buy used PC's unless they are wiped clean) That looks like a much larger loophole than in GPL V2. Am I understanding the point you are complaining about? Although I am not a lawyer. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 01, 2007 12:18 PM EDT |
number6x: Yes, that's exactly my point. And a *lot* of other people made exactly the same point in the previous GPLv3 draft. I haven't seen any response from FSF to these comments. Apparently FSF doesn't share our viewpoint because the clause is still in the final draft. I want to know why FSF thinks we are wrong and why the clause is in there. IMHO it's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. MS could set up "Microsoft IP Inc." and continue what it has been doing so far. Not good. Also, think of any other patent troll. They can freely tax Linux as well because they don't distribute software. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 12:37 PM EDT |
> Also, think of any other patent troll. I would guess that's the reason they put in the language about "the business of distributing software". If it weren't for that, you would violate the GPL by settling a lawsuit with a patent holding company. Offhand, I can't think of an easy way for MS to just form a separate entity and then transfer their patent rights. I know I wouldn't like it if I was a shareholder of MS. (You gave away WHAT?) And if they could manage to pull that off, it would have to be out in the open and there would quickly be a GPLv4. (Assume the usual disclaimer: IANAL, but even if I was, I wouldn't be very good at it.) |
| number6x Jun 01, 2007 12:49 PM EDT |
jrm, not if the holding company grants a license back to Microsoft for use of all of its patents. The MS stockholders would own stock in the new patent holding company, so they wouldn't care. I think "GPL Busters, Inc" would be a better name than "Microsoft IP, Inc." That or maybe "Section 11 loophole, thank you FSF, Inc." |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
Sander - I think the real problem is the same as I said way back when -- and reflects the input of many lawyers: A general license like the GPL can be a clumsy instrument for some things. Whatever the FSF may have wished to prevent, it also cares about preserving software freedom. I think they were concerned about the unintended consequences of their acts. I think they didn't want language that would inhibit legitimate activities that are consistent the freedoms on which the FSF was founded. The closest analog I can think of is not wanting to be in a position to say something like: "I'm sorry. The operation was a complete success but the patient died." |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 01, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:If it weren't for that, you would violate the GPL by settling a lawsuit with a patent holding company. Only if you were forced to pay per-copy license fees as part of the settlement. A settlement involving a one-time payment or anything else would be valid under GPLv3 (IANAL et. al.) Quoting:I think they were concerned about the unintended consequences of their acts. Probably. Thing is, I can't think of any unintended consequences that are solved by adding the "that is in the business of distributing software" part. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 2:00 PM EDT |
> not if the holding company grants a license back to Microsoft for use of all of its patents. So MS is going to start a new entity, assign their patent rights, issue stock based on the % ownership of MS, and elect a board. Got it. Now about those contracts with Novell... wait a minute, the new entity doesn't have a contract with Novell. I wonder about the wording of those contracts... will they have to renegotiate? It gets really convoluted. I'm not too worried about it. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
> Only if you were forced to pay per-copy license fees as part of the settlement. You're probably right. But I would agree to anything, as long as I don't have to read that license again right now ;-) |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 01, 2007 2:15 PM EDT |
jrm: no need. It's also in my quote above:Quoting:under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work That's legalize for a per-copy license. |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 2:17 PM EDT |
>Thing is, I can't think of any unintended consequences that are solved by adding the "that is in the business of distributing software" part. I wonder if that's intended to allow you to distribute software without fear of violating non-software patents? I am, at the moment, at a loss to see exactly how that would be a problem, but, imagine for a moment, that somebody made a deal with a graphics card maker or maybe a deal for blu-ray the second or whatever it might be. I don't know... I have a little trouble seeing how that would a) work and b) need an exception because I don't readily see software infringing hardware patents. Sigh. Beats me, but I'll bet somebody out there is doing something that never occurred to us and raised an objection. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Google to the rescue. So he's not an attorney, but it's all I could find. From a talk by Richard Stallman in Brussels... "So we put in a condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph." The link is http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcr... |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
>As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph." But doesn't that seem a bit odd? Why would you afford patent parasites a higher status than Microsoft? Microsoft may be vile, but still manages to produce and do something. Patent parasites have only child molesters to look down upon. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 3:03 PM EDT |
The "patent parasite" hasn't distributed any code. He's an untouchable. The only entity you can punish is the one that enters into the agreement with the "patent parasite". I'm too tired to go back and reword that. Consider it a question. Is that a valid interpretation? |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 3:11 PM EDT |
>The "patent parasite" hasn't distributed any code. He's an untouchable. The only entity you can punish is the one that enters into the agreement with the "patent parasite". All well and good, but that wording is not aimed at the one granting the patent licenses. It's aimed at the one getting them --- which would be the software distributor. |
| bigg Jun 01, 2007 4:36 PM EDT |
If the goal is to ensure that everyone has the same protection from patent lawsuits, I fail to see the distinction between Microsoft and any other parasite. It's either a bad thing to offer protection from lawsuits or it isn't. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 4:57 PM EDT |
> But doesn't that seem a bit odd? I totally misinterpreted your point in the first place. If I wasn't full of caffeine, I'd go to sleep. So to answer your question: Yes, it seems a bit odd. |
| jrm Jun 01, 2007 4:58 PM EDT |
> If the goal is to ensure that everyone has the same protection from patent lawsuits, I fail to see the distinction between Microsoft and any other parasite. I'm going to break with tradition. I am officially changing my mind and admitting error. This clause of the GPL no longer makes sense to me. Not because it's a loophole, but because I now see it as being inconsistent. (Does everything have to be about MS, the one true enemy?) |
| dinotrac Jun 01, 2007 6:36 PM EDT |
> I am officially changing my mind and admitting error. I thought I felt a tremor in the space-time continuum. Hey rev...is that sort of thing allowed in the TOS? Seriously, though, I have long worried that the Novell-Microsoft deal might have brought on a small case of 800 lb. gorilla myopia. It's very natural to want to slap Microsoft in its corporate face. Well earned, too. Fortunately, the folks from the FSF have a practical streak and I think they've managed to avoid anything horrible. A little inconsistency? Hey, we should all be so lucky to have that for the worst problem we deal with. |
| dcparris Jun 02, 2007 5:04 AM EDT |
And here you were worried that the FSF might take us into reverse technological oppression! |
| jrm Jun 02, 2007 6:00 AM EDT |
I think the FSF did the best they could. It's difficult to try to use a software license as a tool to resolve the patent mess. I don't think there's anything in the GPLv3 that would prevent its widespread use. |
| tracyanne Jun 02, 2007 3:51 PM EDT |
I think the GPL3 looks pretty good, it's not perfect, but nothing is. It looks to me that they have made a good attempt to clarify the intent of the patent clauses in V2, without causing undue harm in the process. |
| galeru Jun 02, 2007 4:39 PM EDT |
I think the GPL3 is pretty well done myself, but I do have a question. Why are the definitions for the license split up? Isn't it supposed to have all of them in a section labeled Definitions or similar? |
| bigg Jun 02, 2007 7:09 PM EDT |
As much as I disagree with their position on the Novell-Microsoft deal, I have little room to complain about GPLv3. Stallman, Moglen, and company might say some things I disagree with, but they are smart enough to not screw up the GPL. I believe the proper term is to say they are "pragmatic". And this is a proper use of the word pragmatic. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!