apache license 2.0 for consideration

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Mark Shewmaker scripsit:

> So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that
> seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL,
> but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have
> been revoked.

That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q held
by Person_Q for which Person_C has no license.  Program_C is not
usable by Person_C although properly distributed to him.  The fact
that Person_C's license to Patent_A is being revoked because of a
patent-defense clause is interesting, but I don't see how it's
specially relevant.  (IANAL, TINLA, as usual.)

> Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the
> GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute
> it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A.

Sure he can distribute it to Person_C; Person_C just can't use
what he gets.  The GPL doesn't restrict me from distributing to you
because you can't (due to some legal disability) use the program,
any more than I am restricted from distributing CP/M programs to
you under the GPL just because you don't have a Z80 machine
to run them on.

> In fact, looking at this from before Person_C starts a lawsuit,
> you can think of things from the point of view that in order
> for Person_[BC] to (continue to) have GPL-rights to Program_[ABC],
> Person_C is required to refrain from suing Person_A for patent
> infringement.

The GPL rights of Person_[BC] are not altered, merely the use right
of Person_C to Program_C.

> So would the requirement-not-to-sue be an additional requirement
> that would be counter to the GPL in the first place?

No, or at least not on this line of reasoning.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan at reutershealth.com
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3