Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Lawrence E. Rosen
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Wed Mar 12 20:36:39 UTC 2003
Answers interspersed. /Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan at reutershealth.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> Cc: 'Bjorn Reese'; license-discuss at opensource.org; rms at gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
>
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from
> > Person A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B
> (for W+X or
> > W'). Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
>
> The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for
> patent infringement, does that void his license to do things with W'?
If C sues A for patent infringement, C can no longer copy, modify or
distribute W, or W+X, or W', because his license to do those things with
W is terminated.
If C sues B for patent infringement, A doesn't care. Unless, of course,
B licenses using the Mutual Defense provision, in which case A and B
defend each other by terminating both licenses!
> If so, and if X is under the GPL, then W' cannot lawfully be
> created, because it is a derivative of two works with
> contradictory licensing terms.
What's contradictory? I agree there is an encumbrance based on the
license for W, but it is a contingent encumbrance that becomes effective
only when C elects to sue A for patent infringement. Nothing in the GPL
prohibits such a contingent termination provision for a component of a
GPL-licensed derivative work. In any case, the licensee can read about
those contingencies via the license notices in the source code. (In
case you were wondering, section 7 of the GPL doesn't apply to this
situation.)
> If not, I suggest a sentence be added to the AFL saying that
> the M.T.P.A. clause is expressly inapplicable to derivative
> works unless the work as a whole is licensed under a license
> containing the M.T.P.A. (More gracefully worded, preferably.)
I don't think the added wording is necessary because the AFL *is*
compatible with the GPL.
/Larry
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list