2017-05-09 13:57:02 +00:00
|
|
|
% GPL's Handling of Non-Copyright Systems
|
2017-05-09 14:49:46 +00:00
|
|
|
% Bradley M. Kuhn & Karen M. Sandler
|
2017-05-09 13:57:02 +00:00
|
|
|
% Tuesday 9 May 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Non-Copyright Systems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Patents, NDAs, & other agreements often impact software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ GPL is essentially a copyright license.
|
|
|
|
|
- so, how does GPL handle these systems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ As always, GPL has **conditional** permissions.
|
|
|
|
|
- some such conditions relate to these other legal regimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Compliance for these is much more legalistic than technical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# GPLv2§7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="fitonslide">
|
|
|
|
|
<p>[GPLv2§]7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
|
|
|
|
|
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
|
|
|
|
|
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
|
|
|
|
|
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
|
|
|
|
|
excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
</span>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# GPLv3 Improvements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ GPLv3 expands GPLv2§7 into multiple sections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Creates detailed rules.
|
|
|
|
|
- an improvement
|
|
|
|
|
- legal compliance analysis is less complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Staffing Question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ In complex environments, both lawyers & developers should analyze
|
|
|
|
|
compliance obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Simple environments (i.e., no actual proprietary components in product),
|
|
|
|
|
less expertise & cross-disciplinary staff time needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# More Info / Talk License
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img align="right" src="cc-by-sa-4-0_88x31.png" />
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Specific Sections of Copyleft Guide relating to these topics:
|
|
|
|
|
- [GPLv2 §7: “Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!”](https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4)
|
|
|
|
|
- [GPLv3 §10: Explicit Downstream License](https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-880009.13)
|
|
|
|
|
- [GPLv3 §11: Explicit Patent Licensing](https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-890009.14)
|
|
|
|
|
- [GPLv3 §12: Familiar as GPLv2 §7](https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-920009.15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="fitonslide">
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Presentation and slides are: Copyright © Bradley M. Kuhn (2008–2011, 2015, 2017), Karen M. Sandler (2017), and are licensed under the <a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License</a>. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
</span>
|
