Patent protection by the GPL-2 is not clear. That was one of the main reasons
for the push for the GPL-3. For
example (from 2004):
FSF lawyer
recommends express patent license for GPL, BSD
Ravicher conceded that
there was a "grey area" around the question of what patent rights are implied in
open source licenses.
However, backed by Red Hat senior vice president, Mark
Webbink, he said the inclusion of express patent licenses would eliminate that
possibility.
Here's what a law firm has to say:
The goal of GPL 3 is to bring
the concepts of GPL 2 into the modern era by addressing certain of GPL 2's
loopholes and omissions. In large part, GPL 2 did not provide patent protection
for software because it wasn't needed. At the time of GPL 2's release in 1991,
it addressed proprietary software head-on by its mere
existence.
My point is that it is a legal grey area. To be safe,
as Mark Webblink (of Groklaw fame) said, you want to also have an explicit
patent license. That's what passing the TCK test gives
you.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|