Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Updated a citation and fixed some language in implied license section.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Tony Sebro 2014-03-19 11:50:31 -04:00 committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent f3585ce68d
commit 6d6d18f1e6
1 changed files with 13 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

25
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1406,7 +1406,7 @@ the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of
whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java
programming language are entitled to copyright protection. While the programming language are entitled to copyright protection. While the
court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without
license (872 F. Supp.2nd 974 at 1002), the court held that the command license (872 F. Supp.2d 974 at 1002), the court held that the command
structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law. structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the
@ -1816,7 +1816,7 @@ seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the
parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put. parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.
\end{quotation} \end{quotation}
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 1445, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Of course, Free Software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed Of course, Free Software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed
restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely
@ -1835,17 +1835,16 @@ software is what would be considered ``uses of the [software] to which
the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A
clever advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPLv2 is clever advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPLv2 is
larger in scope than the express license in other Free Software larger in scope than the express license in other Free Software
licenses with express patent grants, in that, the patent license licenses with express patent grants, in that the patent license
clause of many of those licenses are specifically limited to the clause of many of those other Free Software licenses are specifically
patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee. limited to the patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee.
In contrast, a GPLv2 licensee, under the doctrine of implied patent license,
is free to practice any patent claims held by the licensor that cover
``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well
include creation and distribution of derivative works since the GPL's terms,
under which the patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity.
To the contrary, GPLv2's implied patent license grants the GPLv2 licensee a
patent license to do much more than just that because the GPLv2 licensee,
under the doctrine of implied patent license, is free to practice any
patent claims held by the licensor that cover ``reasonably contemplated
uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well include creation and
distribution of derivative works since the GPL's terms, under which the
patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity.
Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that
the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to
@ -1860,6 +1859,8 @@ of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member. benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
Note that simply because GPLv2'd software has an implied patent license does Note that simply because GPLv2'd software has an implied patent license does
not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPLv2'd code become not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPLv2'd code become
worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable