Suggested addition to the open-source definition

[Richard Fontana]

David A. Temeles, Jr. wrote:
> The most problematic aspect of the draft
> GPL v 3 is its glaring attempt to coerce down-stream licensors
> (sub-licensors) to license their entire patent portfolios, even if those
> patents have nothing to do with the modified version of the software
> licensed by those sub-licensors.  I do not intend to debate the GPL 3.0 here
> as I do not know if this is the appropriate forum. 

As Zak has suggested, this is not an appropriate forum for that, and you
should raise this issue by submitting a comment at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/. I hope that you do, since I cannot see
anything in the draft that could reasonably be read as an attempt to
coerce anyone to license their entire patent portfolios.

Many holders of large as well as small patent portfolios, and their
attorneys, are involved in the GPLv3 discussion process, and, while the
language of the new express patent license grant has drawn much
constructive and informative criticism, I know of no one who has
interpreted it as you have done.

-- 
Richard E. Fontana
Counsel
Software Freedom Law Center
tel. 212-461-1909
fax  212-580-0898