Front page | perl.artistic2 |
Postings from April 2006
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:48:27AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote: > On Apr 26, 2006, at 2:38, mock wrote: > > >Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate > >license that > >meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13? > >For example > >GPL v2. > > If anyone did start patent litigation against one of the Perl users > (and we'd really prefer they don't), and triggered section 13, then > their right to redistribute under 4(c)(ii) is revoked along with the > rest of the license. > > You have to have copyright (because you own the package or because > someone granted rights to you) before you can distribute to anyone. But this revocation cannot chain, surely? If 1: Company A downloads source from TPF 2: Company A redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Company B 3: Company B redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Companies C,D,E 4: Company B unhelpfully starts patent litigation against someone then as Company B obtained the source code under GPLv2, it hasn't broken any terms of that agreement, so can continue to distribute. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next