Regarding the text:if you accept a patent license that prohibits royalty-free conveying by 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 conveying the Program. In section: gpl3.libertyordeath.p0.s3 Submitted by: pimlotton 2006-08-03 at 02:27 EDT
3 agree: MathFox, cyd, jamesgnz
noted by pimlotton 2006-08-03 at 02:27 EDT:
There are some objections to this sentence in draft 1, which I agree with. I want to state the objections more forcefully, and propose a very simple solution.
I consider the "for example" in section 7 of the GPLv2 (from which this sentence derives) its weakest point. (See http://lwn.net/Articles/167253/ , http://lwn.net/Articles/191378/ .) Similar criticism applies to this draft. The connection between the "example" and the preceeding is dubious. Even the language is confused: How does my patent license prohibit anyone else anything?
The silver lining: Everything this sentence tries to accomplish is already covered in much clearer, more explicit terms by the new section 11! So the "for example" in section 12 is mere baggage and can be dropped without losing anything.
Comment 1566: this "example" is weak, obviated by section 11
This Comment is part of the discussion on:#1491: (ratiodoc) Clarifying example
Regarding the text:
In section: gpl3.libertyordeath.p0.s3
Submitted by: pimlott on 2006-08-03 at 02:27 EDT
3 agree: MathFox, cyd, jamesgnz
noted by pimlott on 2006-08-03 at 02:27 EDT: noted by pimlott on 2006-08-03 at 02:47 EDT: noted by novalis on 2006-08-04 at 14:19 EDT:
collapse children