[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Kurt Häusler <> writes:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:30:13 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Sure.  What about "or any later version" did you not understand?
>> However, that does not make the original copyright holder
>> responsible for redistribution under the GPL 3, so it is you, the
>> relicensor, that have to provide the patent protection if you can.
>> Which you likely can't.
> Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
> ownership of the FSF.

How so?

> But aren't the issues of copyright and patent somewhat separate?


> What does "patent protection" consist of in this case? I understand
> that patent owners have to actively defend their patents against
> unlicensed use by threatening lawsuits, but what can I do as a coder
> / distributor do to protect others from said lawsuits beyond
> releasing the source under the terms of the gplv3?

Releasing under GPLv3 protects from lawsuits by _downstream_
distributors.  It can't magically apply itself to upstream.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]