Upgrading to Firefox 2.0?

[Mike Kallies]

On 11/5/06, Ian Petersen <ispeters-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
...
> I am not a lawyer, and all that, but my understanding is that it
> doesn't work that way.  Patents and copyrights are two different
> beasts, and GPL2 doesn't discuss patents, IIRC.  Your step 3, above,
> is perfectly legal from a copyright perspective, but using the
> patented algorithm without the permission of the patent-holder (MS) is
> still illegal, regardless of the expression of the patented "idea" and
> who controlls the expression

The GPL2 does briefly mention patents, but it mentions them in a way
which doesn't make a lot of sense (section 7)

"... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by all 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 distribution of the
Program."

"redistribution"

Whether or not it is illegal to "use" a device which is patented
without the permission of the patent holder, I have no idea.  Patent
law is insane.

So maybe yes, I can see how MS could charge a fee to "use" a GPL'd
program which steps on a patent, and still not fall into the trap of
section 7 of the GPL.

The same applies to all commercial software though and there should
still be a standoff.  Else, why hasn't a company like MS already
demanded royalties for every technology which Linux tramples on?

-Mike
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists