Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

From: James Bottomley
Date: Sat Sep 30 2006 - 11:07:15 EST

On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 17:05 +1000, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I just can't see where you get this interpretation of the GPLv2
> from. The wording in GPLv2 is:
> If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
> obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
> then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
> 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.

This means if you try to enforce royalties on a patent in a piece of
GPLv2 software, you and everyone else lose the right to distribute it.
However, to enforce or license royalty free is an existing choice. The
damage caused by making the programme undistributable is assessable
against the value of the patent.

v3 removes this choice by making the patent automatically licensed as
soon as you distribute, hence the choice is taken away.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at