Question on OSD #5

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
> Hence they could merely use GPL'd libraries and argue that the use of
> those libraries does not constitute derivation.   Suppose you do
> challenge them?  They might win (and the linking == derivation
> argument falls for everyone)

No.  It falls for that particular instance.  Court decisions only apply
to the relevant facts (and even then they get overturned, as with
software patents, which were originally illegal and became legal without
any relevant change in law).  Not every instance of linking is the same.

> Governments are a sort of special case.  They can also rewrite the
> rules in the middle in order to protect their interests.  In short it
> may not be useful to suggest what governments may or may not be able
> to do under the GPL.

I agree to an extent.  Furthermore, given that the NSA /is/ one of the
most secret agencies in the world, it's not like we could catch them
violating the law.

>>> For an original author with many patents, the patent issue is more
>>> important.  I would still prefer an implicit "use" license over a
>>> deliberately weak explicit license.
>> I suppose that we have to agree to disagree.  From my perspective
>> I have zero desire to potentially give away someone else's work.
> 
> In general I would agree.  Patent retaliation clauses (let us use your
> patents or else everyone can sue you for using this software) do give
> permission to perhaps even maliciously infringe on patents.

You've got to be more specific.  There are half a dozen /types/ of
patent retaliation clauses.  And we were really just talking about
patent licenses, not retaliation clauses.

Matt Flaschen