"Paul" == Paul Iadonisi <pri(_dot_)marid(_at_)iadonisi(_dot_)to> writes:
>> Even if Sender ID is incompatible with the GPL [2] -- and I'm
>> skeptical that it is except under the most extreme
>> interpretations --
Paul> And we have yet to see a convincing legal argument (or
Paul> *any* legal argument) from an attorney posted to this list.
Paul> I'd like to know what Anne Mitchell (on this list) thinks of
Paul> her legal analysis being called extreme by a non-lawyer.
Ok, here's my argument:
(1) Imagine you don't sign the patent license. In that case, the
license clearly has no effect on you. The question is, does the
existence of a patent claim prevent you from distributing under
the GPL anyway.
It is possible to interpret the GPL such that it does, since you
are not in a position to offer rights to redistribute, although
it's not clear (to me) that this is what the GPL intends.
This may even be the correct interpretation of the GPL, however I
call it an 'extreme' position because under that position it is
also unlawful to distribute the Linux kernel, since it seems
likely from recent reparts that there are a substantial number of
patent claims against it. In fact, this is likely to be true of
most non-trivial GPL'd software.
(2) Now imagine that you _have_ signed the Sender ID license. The
Sender ID license doesn't require you to place any restrictions on
the recipient of the software, as far as I can see the situation
with GPL compliance is no different to (1)
-roy