Personal tools

Belt and suspenders

From GPLv3 Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 00:39, 6 November 2006
pelliott (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 00:46, 6 November 2006
pelliott (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 19: Line 19:
Well, the agreement does not prohibit royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through company A. It simply does not say anything on this point. It does, however, protect Company A and its customers who run the program without protecting anyone else. Well, the agreement does not prohibit royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through company A. It simply does not say anything on this point. It does, however, protect Company A and its customers who run the program without protecting anyone else.
-Company A maintains that company B's patent claims (if any) are invalid and that fact protects downstream conveyors. It too bad that company B's non customers do not have the additional protection that Company A's customers do.+Company A maintains that company B's patent claims (if any) are invalid and that fact protects downstream conveyors. It too bad that company A's non customers do not have the additional protection that Company A's customers do.
Company A is saying everyone is protected because they have a belt. (The patent claims are invalid). Company A is saying everyone is protected because they have a belt. (The patent claims are invalid).

Revision as of 00:46, 6 November 2006

I have a question about GPL version 3 and what may become a common situation, as a non lawyer I can not tell how GPLv3 would apply in this situation. I bet many lawyers will have the same problem.

Company A is a redistributor of the program. It obeys all of the usual requirements except for the unclear question below. Company B makes noises that it has patent claims against the program. Company B is not an author or conveyor of the program.

Company A maintains that all patent claims against the program are invalid because of defenses like prior art, not original, etc.

Nevertheless, company A obtains an agreement that Company B will not sue Company A or its customers, but not the whole world. The agreement is carefully written so that Company A does not admit that company B has any valid patent claims against the program.

In spite of this, the agreement is still valuable to company A because:

  • It is expensive to be sued, even if you are in the right and win.
  • The FUD factor.

So company A can be sincere in its position of redundant protection.

Quoting from GPLv3:

"For example, 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."

Well, the agreement does not prohibit royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through company A. It simply does not say anything on this point. It does, however, protect Company A and its customers who run the program without protecting anyone else.

Company A maintains that company B's patent claims (if any) are invalid and that fact protects downstream conveyors. It too bad that company A's non customers do not have the additional protection that Company A's customers do.

Company A is saying everyone is protected because they have a belt. (The patent claims are invalid).

It is just too bad that everyone does not have suspenders as well. (The agreement).

Question: Is company A a GPLv3 violator?


What would be the answer to this question under GPL v2?

This situation will likely be important in the future. Companies collect patents, especially invalid patents and trade them like baseball cards. They are bargaining chips in a FUD war. Companies don't like to try to enforce their patents, especially if they are invalid.

Therefore, there are many dubious patents that have not been tested and likely never will be tested. So the described situation may well be common.