GPL getting tougher on patent deals

TalkBack 11 of 26:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

anonymous contributions are forbidden

every contributor to a GPL project is liable for his changes to the GPLed source. The GPL requires describing which change you have made, and requires maintaining the history.

If you get a GPL product from a distributor you cannot identify, then the only safe behavior is to not use it, because you can't know if the source is legal. But if you accept it, and redistribute it yourself (to include it as part another GPLed product) you become liable for this distribution.

In pratice, GPL'ed software are hosted on wellknown project sites, and these sites are constantly evaluating the incoming contribution. They won't accept contributions from anonymous contributors. They mainatin an history of changes so that every part can be attributed to someone.

If that person has abused another licence or included parts that are found to be covered by a threatening patent, this part will be removed from the project as soon as possible, and that contributor will be publicly denounced for abuse. The project will inform its users that the distribution is suspended until a alternative is found. But yes, this is still threatening for many GPLed project, because patents are not licenced in the same way as softwares: there's no public announcement, and patent holder may claim their rights at any time but may attempt to compromize a project by injecting patented material into free/libre open-source projects without revealing that what they include is covered by a hidden patent.

For this reason, contributors and distributors of GPLed software should never be anonymous, and you shoudl never accept any software that you intend to redistribute (whatever its licence, free or not) if you can't identify the distributor from which you get it, and it does not give you an explicit licence with it.

Note that the GPL does REQUIRE that all distributors give you a licence immediately with the covered product, in addition to keeping the copyright notices and the attribution notices in the sources that every distributor must be able to provide with no charge during THREE YEARS after the distribution and your subliucencing of a covered binary (it is in fact recommanded to keep the sources for longer periods, as long as someone could investigate, but then you are allowed to request payment after these 3 years to cover your costs).

All GPLed products distributed without a licence are ILLEGAL and distributors are ABUSING the legitimate rights of the original authors (or even abusing the rights owned by other authors as well).

It is necessary to distribute the sources exactly because it protects the rights of everyone, but also because the history of modifications and contributions are part of the sources.

Posted by: PhilippeV   Posted on: 03/29/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now