Suggested addition to the open-source definition

David A. Temeles, Jr. dtemeles at
Mon Apr 24 20:38:22 UTC 2006

Richard Fontana wrote:

>As Zak has suggested, this is not an appropriate forum for that, and you
>should raise this issue by submitting a comment at
> 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.

The word "coerce" is admittedly overstating the point.  My opinion about
GPLv3's overreaching nature, however, is shared by a substantial number in
the legal community - to the point that Continuing Legal Education courses
on recent developments in open source licensing are now highlighting the
potential impact of the current wording of the GPLv3 on patent portfolios,
mergers and acquisitions, etc.  (read - "tell your clients to prohibit the
use of any software that is subject to the GPLv3 if it is adopted in its
current form").  I will review the existing posts in the GPLv3 forum and
then respond as you suggest with a more formal legal analysis directed to
the proposed language.  As stated in my initial post, I did not intend to
start dissecting the GPLv3 in this forum.  

Do you have any thoughts on the change proposed by Mr. Garrett or my
response thereto?

Thanks for your time.

Very truly yours,

David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemeles at
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

More information about the License-discuss mailing list