W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Restrictive Patent Usage

From: Federico Heinz <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>
Date: 28 Nov 2002 19:07:41 -0300
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <1038521263.17066.806.camel@michelle>
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:34, Dan Kegel wrote:
> This is the crux of the matter.  We probably need a lawyer or two
> to go over it and see if they agree with your interpretation.
> Anyone know a lawyer who won't get dizzy trying to interpret a recursive document?

If I may say so, we *do* have the opinion of Eben Moglen, as stated in
the FSF's position paper on this matter, and he says that "field of use"
and GPL don't mix. I doubt we could find a lawyer better qualified to
interpret the GPL than him anywhere in the galaxy... the FSF is the
author of the GPL, and he's the FSF's legal counsel! If *he* doesn't
know how to correctly read the GPL, who does?

> I wonder if a "for the purposes of implementing this standard, or as
> part of a work licensed under the GPL" amendment would fly.

I wonder, too. I worry whether that would leave the door open for
trouble with non-GPL copyleft licenses, though (the Perl license, for
example, which uses the terms of the GPL as an alternative to the
Artistic License, would be reduced effectively to the Artistic License).


Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 19:31:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:48 UTC