GPL software with GPL+compatibility specific patent license

[Karsten M. Self]

on Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 04:51:46PM -0800, Jeff Breidenbach (jeff at jab.org) wrote:
> 
> I think I understand the GPL pretty well, but I would like to get a
> considered, expert opinion on the following scenario. For example,
> consider a particular audio compression technology with the following
> components:
> 
> A = software based compressor and decompressor
> B = the file format of the compressed music
> C = patents covering the generic technology
> Q = entity who developed/owns all of the above
> 
> If entity Q does the following:
> 
> *  A is licensed under the GPL
> 
> *  B is published w/all rights reserved by Q
> 
> *  C are licensed royalty-free for GPL software complying with B.
> 
> *  A and/or C are additionally available for commercial licensing,
>    under a fee-bearing proprietary license.
> 
> The goal of the compatibility-with-B requirement in the patent
> licensing is to prevent interoperability problems.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Is this all ok in theory with respect to the GPL?

It's consistent with proposals I and others have made, and with comments
and conversations I've seen/had with RMS.

Specifically, if your patent license doesn't restrict use of the patent
under GPLd software, you're GPL compatible:   You're not adding a
requirement to the software (if it's GPLd, it's GPLd, the patent becomes
an additional right granted to a work that's GPLd).  It's consistent
with the Debian DFSG, in that the patent's terms don't discriminate
against a field of endeavor -- again, they're the same as for the
software.

In general, the approach you're suggesting is the one usually
recommended for patent licensing to free software.  The GPL offers
certain advantages in that it offers both compatibility (the patent
license grant appears to be meaningful), and containment (the patent
license can't be used in anything that's not free software under the
GPL) at the same.

> 2) Is this all ok in practice, or will entities like the FSF or others
> object to something?

I can virtually guarantee that some will object.  I don't think RMS will
be one of them.

See for example Raph Levien's free software patent grant:

    http://www.levien.com/patents.html

...which has been commented on, but not significantly criticized, over
the course of over 18 months.

Peace.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                    Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                      http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011227/a88ade09/attachment.sig>