Javier Candeira schrieb:
> GPL v2 does protect the work from software patents.
Ah, I seem to have overlooked that one.
I have two nits to pick with your statement:
1) Software cannot be protected from patents. Protection
from patents is
something that can be granted to persons or companies, not
to software.
(This is slightly hair-splitting, but saying "the
software is protected"
doesn't make sure whether it's the licensor or the licensee
who's
protected.)
2) The protection that this license offers is rather
marginal. No
language in a license can protect the licensees from
third-party patents.
Worse, this offers an opportunity for a nasty trick: if the
license is
advertised as "protects from patents", a company
can create a subsidiary
that owns and distributes GPL software that uses patents
held by the
parent company. The parent company stays silent about the
patents, waits
until the software is used by many people, then comes forth,
announces
the patent and collects.
With the right construction, the relationship between
company and
subsidiary need not even be public.
The only thing that helps against this kind of plot is the
counterplot
to any software patents: do the patent research, and good
luck to you...
Nit (2) essentially says that the website should be very,
very careful
about claiming any kind of protection. Even if the website
authors
cannot be held responsible if somebody relies on the
information given,
a single case where somebody is damaged can destroy CC's
reputation in
no time at all.
Regards,
Jo
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
