Re: a compromise on Evolution?

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

On Sad, 2004-08-07 at 23:48, Christoffer Olsen wrote:
> Alan mentioned some stuff on patent bombing and new issues to the case
> that I don't quite get yet, maybe someone could fill out on this
> (objectively, please).

I'll do my best too. Firstly note that the situation I'm describing
isn't something I'm accusing anyone of planning. 

The GPL itself has what some people call a "patent bomb" clause. This
provides that if the code is shown to be in violation of a patent then
nobody can use it. Without such a clause a case could arise where only
the patent holder and its licensees could use the code. This would have
allowed a patent [ab]user to hijack free software and effectively make
it proprietary. Instead the license makes this a "live free or die"
case.

When you license the code to Novell they give you all the free software
rights back. A third party patent claim could still lead to the free use
rights vanishing but Novell settling the patent claim by licensing only
the rights for their nonfree version. Depending on the claim that could
need a minor adjustment to the free code to avoid violation or make the
free version cease to exist in the USA.

This has to be explicit in the contract because if a third party makes
the contract impossible for legal reasons it may not also remove
Novell's right to use the code. Law has a doctrine of "frustration"
which deals with undoing contracts that become impossible to complete
through no fault of the parties signing the contract - the law class
examples typically being selling a ship which then sinks or signing a
contract to supply goods to a country that is then subject to an embargo
prohibiting the trade.

If the wording is made clear about this then if the free version ceases
to exist so will the non-free one. This prevents the case where an evil
company might arrange a threatened suit against itself to take out the
free version and thus steal the code.

Alan