If I give you a mp3 decoder with a BSD license that says that you’re Free to use that software they way you want, I’m deceiving you. You can’t use that software unless you obtain a license from the patent holders.

In other words, I should give you that software with a license that should include a clause that should say: “In order to use this software you must obtain a license from XXX”.

But you see, then it wouldn’t be a Free license anymore.

So in this case, the GPL vs. BSD debate is irrelevant. You can’t use either of them.

(When a BSD license makes a difference is when a company gets some BSD code (that’s patent encumbered), then pays royalties to patent holders and then distributes that code under a *proprietary* license. This is legal, since BSD license allows relicensing under a proprietary one. But GPL doesn’t allow you to change the licensing terms.)

I write a codec for the H264 proprietary format. This format is patented and the patent holders haven’t given out a universal, royalty free distribution right to the world. So I license my codec under an Apache license, pay royalties to the right people and distribute it in the USA.

Legal?

No. The Apache license (as any Free license), allows the person who receives the code to (among other things) redistribute this code as they see fit. So some user gets the code, modifies it and redistributes it – just as the license allows him to do. Now the patent holders go and sue him for violating their patent rights. And they win (obviously).

Now the users sues ME for giving him the code under an invalid license, deceiving him in making him believe the code is Free, when it’s not. And he wins (obviously).

Conclusion: You can’t distribute code that’s patent encumbered under ANY Free license in the USA. It’s illegal. The Free license is invalid because you don’t have the full rights to that code you’re distributing. So you can’t decide to distribute it under a Free license on your own.

Clear now?

I repeat: the (L)GPL is _NOT_ imposing this restriction. It is just _warning_ users about this LEGAL restriction. It is saying: Beware, if the code is patent encumbered, you can’t use this license because it would be illegal. The Apache license doesn’t say so, it just assumes that the person knows the laws in his own jurisdiction and won’t do it if those laws don’t permit it.

So ALL Free software that’s patent encumbered can’t be Free in the USA. It is illegal to redistribute it without explicit permission from the patent holders. You can’t take a Free license out of your ass to distribute it just because YOU payed the royalties for your own distribution. Because by using a Free license you are telling the persons who receives that code that they can redistribute it freely, when they can’t. The Free license it void. Invalid.

How about them complying with the fucking licence?

As Christian points out, just because someone has a patent and can demand an entrance fee from everyone “doing some media stuff” doesn’t mean that those same people can just waive the distribution terms of the software concerned.

It’s fascinating to see the “pervasive intellectual property” lobby give out their “suit up for the world of business, hippies and hobbyists” message with all its insinuation about people not respecting the “intellectual property” of others, and then in the blink of an eye, more or less suggest that everyone with a patent can effectively take ownership of stuff produced by random strangers.

As usual in such discussions, “realist” and “pragmatist” are recurring terms which can be distilled to meaning “ethics kept getting in the way”.

“The LGPL and GPL are so ambiguously worded anyways that Google’s lawyers have probably laughed this whole thing off, as they should have.”

Yes, I’m sure Cisco’s lawyers felt the same way, too. They’re probably not laughing any more.

So the moral question is, do you feel the license of open source software should be respected? Or should anyone who gets hold of open source software feel free to disregard the license as they see fit?

Also @Markus re:google collecting “personal” data. That’s a large part of how google services work. They are clearly designed to try to collect data in a way that doesn’t infringe privacy (though there have been problems) and it is always as far as I can see possible to opt-out and if not to simply not use the service. Google offer all of these great free services built significantly on usage data and which have played a big part in transforming the web and people whinge that a database somewhere knows what kind of peanuts they searched for last week.

I think that the much greater risk to your privacy, to the possibility of fraud etc, is the data people willingly put out there.

Still, that was a bit off-topic.

What’s your point?