GnuPG 1.0.4-1 + IDEA for Windows

Steven Scott
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:15:22 -0500

    Actually, section 8 applies to the copyright holder (FSF) which allows
them to restrict the distribution of the software to the countries that have
the patent problem.  This does not conflict the patent statements of section
7, but would allow the copyright holder to restrict the distribution of the
software containing the patented code, to only those countries that do not
have the patent problem.  This would allow the FSF to include the IDEA code
in a distribution, but add a restriction that in can not be used in the US,
or other countries that have Patents on software.

Steven Scott
Solution Consultants Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael H. Warfield" <>
To: "ESP" <>; "Keith Ray" <>;
Cc: "Michael H. Warfield" <>
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: GnuPG 1.0.4-1 + IDEA for Windows

> Followup, after I reread the GPL yet AGAIN...
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 05:16:21PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > The patents clause of the GPL is invalid simply because it doesn't
> > address the issue of jurisdiction. With that clause in place, we either
> > have software which is GPL in some countries and not in either, or we
> > say that any patent anywhere applies which places the GPL hostage to
> > any past, present or future patent scheme in any country in the world,
> > or we say that one countrie's jurisdiction applies to the entire world.
> > (The US applying to EC, yeah right... They'll be singing Jingle Bells
> > in hades.)
> Ok... I blew it. The GPL has specific provisions for distribution
> in the case of patents enforced in certain geographical areas.
> ] 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
> ] certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
> ] original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
> ] may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
> ] those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
> ] countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
> ] the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
> Ok... That sounds like a way out of the box, doesn't it. Add
> a message stating the geographical distribution. Of course, the section
> says "may add". That's interesting in that we now have a dilema. If
> the GPL prohibits any and all patented technology, then this passage
> is simply gibberish. You could never HAVE any such qualifying software,
> if the very thing itself was prohibited. If it is NOT truely prohibited,
> as section 8 implies, then the original copyright holder is only obligated
> under a "may" and not even a "should" much less a "must". To use IETF
> delineations of nominclature, "must" implies something that is required,
> while "should" is something recommended and "may" is something permitted.
> So section 8 of the GPL as it is included with GnuPG states that if a
> program (implied to be under the GPL or why would we be discussing this)
> is restricted by patents (implying that GPL software might be restricted
> by patents) then the author is permitted (may) to add a restriction on
> distribution.
> It would appear that sections 7 and 8 are in direct conflict
> with each other. How can you even have section 8 if an allegation
> of patent infringement means that you must refrain entirely from
> distribution. Looks like we have an RMS paradox here.
> It's pretty clear that if patents were excluded from GPL software,
> section 8 would be superfluous. If section 8 is NOT superfluous, then
> patents are permitted in GPL software (even patents without universally
> free access as described elsewhere) and if the authors of the GPL had
> meant to REQUIRE an author to restrict distribution, they would have
> used other verbage in section 8. Section 8 exists and is worded "may".
> BTW... We now have a problem. Since it has been insisted that
> this can not be distributed because it contains the Idea algorithm and
> that algorithm is patented, there is something else in GnuPG which is
> patented. Hyperlinks. Yes folks, in case you have been living under
> a rock recently, British Telecom not only claims to hold a patent on
> Hyperlinking technology in general but they are also suing Prodigy
> for infringing on that patent in the US. With any decent luck (and a
> clueful judge) this will be thrown out for the rediculous non-sense that
> it is. ITMT, however, GnuPG contains hyperlinks in its README files and
> in the various html files and even in a few .c sources. Till it is thrown
> out in court, we could be held to be infringing. Even the extreme
> rediculous examples that people dream up can't hold a candle to reality.
> Under section 7, we now have an allegation of infringement of
> the BT Hyperlink patent. Now we have a problem, even if all of us
> AGREE that the patent is rediculous, since the GPL says explicitly, "or
> allegation of patent infringement." You don't even have to be proven
> to be infringing and it says nothing about the legitimacy or sanity
> of the patent itself. It just says "or allegation". Under RMS writing,
> we are guilty until proven innocent.
> That's exactly what RMS is point out in this section of the GPL:
> ] Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
> ] patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
> ] program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
> ] program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
> ] patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
> Well... According to BT, hyperlinking is not free to use without
> royalties (and they are hitting up several other ISP's for royalities
> as well). They constitute some small subset of "everyone".
> > > you want in it, and distribute it?
> > He has meet the letter of the GPL as applied in the EC. If it
> > doesn't apply in the US, fine. Distribute it from one of the .nl crypto
> > sites. Replay changed names and is now what, Upload it to
> > and be done with it! What are you going to do then? It meets
> > the full letter of the GPL. Idea is NOT patented in that jurisdiction.
> Declare the distribution per the GPL and distribute it with that
> statement. Question becomes, what consitutes an explicit geographical
> distribution limitation? Obviously, a list of countries would qualify.
> Would a statement that "can be distributed with no limitations in any
> country where Idea is not patented" constitute an explicit geographical
> limitation? In most cases, it would. It states a testable definitive
> condition underwhich an explicit determination can be made. Works for me.
> > > KR> Why can't we provide TWO versions and let the users decide
> > > KR> which best meets there needs?
> > > Well, at the very least, you're requiring some expensive lawyer time
> > > to get you to do something that you know you're going to have to do
> > > eventually. What good does that do?
> Nope... Take the easy way out of the box. State the distribution
> and let the users sort it out, just like they did with the original pgp
> and the US export restrictions. Free for distribution in Europe and other
> countries not encumbered by software patents. Right there in the GPL.
> My 0.02 euro.
> [...]
> Mike
> --
> Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 |
> (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 |
> NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
> PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
> --
> Archive is at - Unsubscribe by sending mail
> with a subject of "unsubscribe" to
-- Archive is at - Unsubscribe by sending mail with a subject of "unsubscribe" to