Suggested addition to the open-source definition

David A. Temeles, Jr. wrote:
> The most problematic aspect of the draft
> GPL v 3 is its glaring attempt to coerce down-stream
licensors
> (sub-licensors) to license their entire patent
portfolios, even if those
> patents have nothing to do with the modified version of
the software
> licensed by those sub-licensors.  I do not intend to
debate the GPL 3.0 here
> as I do not know if this is the appropriate forum. 

As Zak has suggested, this is not an appropriate forum for
that, and you
should raise this issue by submitting a comment at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/
comments/. I hope that you do, since I cannot see
anything in the draft that could reasonably be read as an
attempt to
coerce anyone to license their entire patent portfolios.

Many holders of large as well as small patent portfolios,
and their
attorneys, are involved in the GPLv3 discussion process,
and, while the
language of the new express patent license grant has drawn
much
constructive and informative criticism, I know of no one who
has
interpreted it as you have done.

-- 
Richard E. Fontana
Counsel
Software Freedom Law Center
tel. 212-461-1909
fax  212-580-0898

Richard Fontana wrote:

>As Zak has suggested, this is not an appropriate forum
for that, and you
>should raise this issue by submitting a comment at
>http://gplv3.fsf.org/
comments/. I hope that you do, since I cannot see
>anything in the draft that could reasonably be read as
an attempt to
>coerce anyone to license their entire patent portfolios.

>Many holders of large as well as small patent
portfolios, and their
>attorneys, are involved in the GPLv3 discussion process,
and, while the
>language of the new express patent license grant has
drawn much
>constructive and informative criticism, I know of no one
who has
>interpreted it as you have done.

The word "coerce" is admittedly overstating the
point.  My opinion about
GPLv3's overreaching nature, however, is shared by a
substantial number in
the legal community - to the point that Continuing Legal
Education courses
on recent developments in open source licensing are now
highlighting the
potential impact of the current wording of the GPLv3 on
patent portfolios,
mergers and acquisitions, etc.  (read - "tell your
clients to prohibit the
use of any software that is subject to the GPLv3 if it is
adopted in its
current form").  I will review the existing posts in
the GPLv3 forum and
then respond as you suggest with a more formal legal
analysis directed to
the proposed language.  As stated in my initial post, I did
not intend to
start dissecting the GPLv3 in this forum.  

Do you have any thoughts on the change proposed by Mr.
Garrett or my
response thereto?

Thanks for your time.

Very truly yours,

David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemelesnvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102