[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:09 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/19/2010 5:46 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
GPL is the devil.  It's a bad idea to subscribe to it if you have
serious IP.

You do not "subscribe" to the GPL. You may choose to release
your work licensed by the GPL. If you do, you agree that you
will not enforce your patents against others who use, copy,
and distribute your work in compliance with the GPL. You are
under no obligation to do so, and if you wish to impose other
requirements for others who use, copy, and distribute work
covered by your "serious IP", then you should not license your
work under the GPL. Of course, if you would like to incorporate
the GPL-covered work of others into your work, then you have a
serious quandary - either do release your work under the GPL,
or else do not use the other GPL-covered work in yours. This is
eminently fair - if you wish to deny others freedom in your work,
others will deny you freedom in their work.

In general, true, but in this case, with the GPL, as you said above,
signing the GPL means you cannot assert your patents against others
that are part of the GPL agreement.  That's bad if you have strong IP,
good if you are a freetard.

If you believe it is bad, you are under no obligation to release
your work under the GPL, but then you may not use GPL-covered work
in your own if you copy and distribute it. That is the same decision
one would make before deciding to use any third-party package; what
am I giving up by using it, and is it worth it?

I sure hope you're not a Linux user.  That's worse than being a
Communist in the 1950s.

My bank will be very unhappy to hear that. Or maybe not, since it's

reply via email to

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