[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

drago01 wrote:
So what about the patents owned by redhat?
It's also just "promise".

True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something that has yet to come out of M$.

(The same can be argued for GPLv2, just that v3 has a "better" license in this regard.)

...and I suspect you'd have more luck getting an actual license from RH if you asked for one.

In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.

Same applies to Redhat.

The question to ask here is how this applies when an actual license has been granted, as in the case of distributing GPLv3 software. (Especially as I don't see "irrevocable" in Section 11... or, indeed, anything about the term of the GPLv3 implicit patent license. Hmm, this is actually a good question at first glance.)

Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]