Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 20, 2004 01:33 PM
Here is how I read this:
1. Distributor releases software and is sued. 2. Some form of injunction is passed that prohibits the distributor from allowing all of the freedoms the GPL requires. 3. Distributor is no longer allowed to distribute GPL software until they can allow the freedoms.
However, a person does not have to loose a court case for step 3 to kick in, they might sign an agreement which would prohibit the GPL freedoms. Under that circumstance they would not be allowed to distribute the GPL software in binary form either; but other people would still be able to distribute the software.
If a piece of software is found to infringe a patent then everyone using that software is infringing, no matter what license they use. i.e., the patent portion is not specific to the GPL.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:The MAD interpretation
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 20, 2004 01:33 PM1. Distributor releases software and is sued.
2. Some form of injunction is passed that prohibits the distributor from allowing all of the freedoms the GPL requires.
3. Distributor is no longer allowed to distribute GPL software until they can allow the freedoms.
However, a person does not have to loose a court case for step 3 to kick in, they might sign an agreement which would prohibit the GPL freedoms. Under that circumstance they would not be allowed to distribute the GPL software in binary form either; but other people would still be able to distribute the software.
If a piece of software is found to infringe a patent then everyone using that software is infringing, no matter what license they use. i.e., the patent portion is not specific to the GPL.
#