Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 20, 2004 11:05 AM
Uh, I only write code myself under GPL, but I think Campbell has a point that Moglen missed.
He calls it mutually assured destruction as once a patent has been successful in proving it is valid against a GPLed product, the GPL can never be used as the license again.
Whoever is forced to take the patent license needs to encumber the GPL, and the GPL encumbered can't be a valid license. The software itself also can't be used/distributed by anyone else either by threat of patent enforcement (and patents cover use not just distribution). This leaves distributors forced to get new licenses from all authors involved (one that can be encumbered) and forces them to pony up for a distribution patent license(to cover distribution and new end users) and current end users would need to individually get an end user license. (Remember the early days of SSL and RSA?)
Patent enforcement is nasty (ie. jack-booted fbi raids going after end-users and customs agents permanently impounding all products at port). No one could even fathom using the software then. The threat alone is a severe chilling effect even now - to currently distribute GPL software you have to be prepared to fight AND succeed in overturning any and all possible patents that might effect the software, otherwise it is useless. To use it, you have to prepared to end up swallowing some crappy SCO-like license.
Crap! I think I am going to go give some money to EFF... We need to stop software patents not just overturn a few (some may be 'valid' or defendable after all).
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
The MAD interpretation
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 20, 2004 11:05 AMHe calls it mutually assured destruction as once a patent has been successful in proving it is valid against a GPLed product, the GPL can never be used as the license again.
Whoever is forced to take the patent license needs to encumber the GPL, and the GPL encumbered can't be a valid license. The software itself also can't be used/distributed by anyone else either by threat of patent enforcement (and patents cover use not just distribution). This leaves distributors forced to get new licenses from all authors involved (one that can be encumbered) and forces them to pony up for a distribution patent license(to cover distribution and new end users) and current end users would need to individually get an end user license. (Remember the early days of SSL and RSA?)
Patent enforcement is nasty (ie. jack-booted fbi raids going after end-users and customs agents permanently impounding all products at port). No one could even fathom using the software then. The threat alone is a severe chilling effect even now - to currently distribute GPL software you have to be prepared to fight AND succeed in overturning any and all possible patents that might effect the software, otherwise it is useless. To use it, you have to prepared to end up swallowing some crappy SCO-like license.
Crap! I think I am going to go give some money to EFF... We need to stop software patents not just overturn a few (some may be 'valid' or defendable after all).
#