| Suppose somebody sends you a patch which implements a nice
| algorithm that just happens to be patented by that same
| somebody. You don't know about the patent.
|
| You integrate the patch into the kernel and distribute it,
| one year later you get sued by the original contributor of
| that patch because you distribute code that is patented by
| that person.
|
| Not having some protection in the license could open you
| up to sneaky after-the-fact problems.
|
| Having a license that explicitly states that people who
| contribute and use Linux shouldn't sue you over it might
| prevent some problems.
Unlikely as this is, since offering the patch would probably be
(eventually) interpreted as giving you the right to use it under GPL, I
think this is a valid concern.
Maybe some lawyer could add the required words and it could become the
LFSL v1.0 (Linux Free Software License). Although FSF would probably buy
into a change if the alternative was creation of a Linux license. There
are people there who are in touch with reality.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/