The following is not meant to be legal advice.
Microsoft and Novell, a Linux distributor, had a deal that avoided GPLversion2 distribution license requirements. Under the deal, Novell customers got a provision not to sue directly from Microsoft, and Microsoft and Novell agreed to make payments to each other. Microsoft had the ability to distribute credits redeemable for Novell Linux support.
Those attorneys specializing in open source may know that GPLversion3 has been released. Under GPLversion2, a licensee who received a patent license from a third party covering GPL code and distributed that GPL code would have to give the license royalty-free to all recipients of the code.
In GPLversion3, the Free Software Foundation included several clauses designed to disallow the Microsoft/Novell type transaction. GPLversion3 has a provision in Section 11 providing that if a patent holder distributes GPLversion3 code but only grants a patent license to some of the parties receiving the code, then the patent is automatically extended to all recipients of the work.
How does GPLversion3 address the deal between Microsoft and Novell? With the change to the GPL, Microsoft restricts its deal to code covered only by GPLversion2.
.jpg)
Comment Preview