=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 19 November 2003 05:58 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp
>
> Seems to be a license to everyone who isn't suing MS for allegedly
> infringing the suer's patent on the .doc format.
=2D --[clip]--
> The argument fails on two counts:
>
> Open format =AD GPL compatible
> The GPL doesn't require that *you* be allowed to sub-license the
> schema. It's enough that the schema is available under a royalty free
> license.
Well, you could be right. I'll look at it here. (BTW, I am not a lawyer.)
The two key paragraphs from the MS patent license are (quoted from the=20
previously referenced location,=20
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp:
"By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be=20
deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are n=
ot=20
licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and=20
conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
"You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights."
The key paragraph from the GPL is here (quoted from=20
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html):
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent=20
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),=20
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or=20
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excu=
se=20
you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to=
=20
satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other=20
pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the=20
Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit=20
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies=
=20
directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy bot=
h=20
it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the=20
Program."
So, let's say I use the MS schema specifications to add MS Word file read a=
nd=20
write to Kwrite. Will the patent license from MS allow me to GPL the code =
I=20
have written to include in Kwrite?
A - The code in question would be a "licensed implementation" of the patent=
ed=20
MS schema.
B - I cannot "distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and=
=20
conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this [MS patent]=20
license."
C - The MS lincense further restricts that I am "not licensed to sublicense=
"=20
the "licensed implementation" that I wrote.
D - If I license the code under the GPL, which I must since it is based on =
a=20
GPL'ed work, am I not sublicensing the "licensed implementation" which woul=
d=20
then violate the MS patent license?
E - Since I cannot sublicense the MS patent license, the GPL prohibits me f=
rom=20
distributing distributing the code under it (see the second sentence of the=
=20
quote above). The example given by the GPL is if a license did not have=20
royalty-free distribuition, but that does not necessarily exclude other=20
reasons that a license could restrict against GPL distribution.
That is my thinking and logic, from a geeks mind, not a lawyer. Tell me wh=
ere=20
my logic is flawed. Wouldn't be the first time!
Alan
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/vDuQUIl18h7/dy4RAgsOAJ0cIz164E5jrZRMY671yEJ+yhm/TgCgkSXi
Ny2pvT8PLd6D64VC6iZMueg=3D
=3DUkkq
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(text/plain)