Basically there are three major classes of capacitors at the moment. There are electrostatic capacitors (the little ceramic blocks sodlgered onto motherboards, fr example), electrolytic capacitors (the ones that can leak fluid). Ultracapacitors are similar to the electrolyic ones (and have an electrolytic mixture) but the technology underlying them is very different. Electrolytic capacitors use basically etched and oxidized aluminum foil, while current ultracapacitors use activated carbon. The article talks about using carbon nanotubes to further increase the surface area available for electron deposit.
While it could be possible that these could explode or leak fluid, I would think that this owuld largely be a question of casing electrolyte mixture, and the like. And due to the different structure I would think the chances would be far less.
When they say "sheds light" they almost mean it literally too, not that the magnet is glowing, but that it allows for lasers to shine through it. (I.e. the magnet design allows lasers to shed light on the superconductor.);-)
IMNHSO it does not "run as it would otherwise" if the HW does not respond "as it would otherwise". I would argue that you have articulated the line I would use.
My solution doesn't change anything about hardware response. It changes something about what other *software* components are on a system, connected to the kernel via pipes managed by a hypervisor.
Think of it this way. Instead of Kernel hardware, you have (for certain hardware) a model much more like kernel Hpervisor "device" (really just a socket) DRM management software in another VM hardware.
I don't see anyehere that says that the hardware vendor has to keep all other portions of the *software* in place just because one piece is upgraded.
Now, as far as Tivo is concerned, since the Linux kernel is just GPL v2, they can do the same thing, substituting the Linux kernel and drivers (possibly using nVidia-style bridges to proprietary drivers) in place of the hypervisor. Sure, you can change your glibc, but if you do, you also have to replace every other piece of software yourself, and some of the modules connecting to the GPL v2 kernel might not load if you use the publically available key.
Licenses are disunct. With one possible exception, you can choose which license to follow.
The possible exception may be the copyright notice which states which licenses you can choose to follow. For instance just because I use this dual-licensed code and distribute it, doesn't mean that it ceases to be dual-licensed if someone pulls out the Sun code out of my application.
Under the GPL and BSD scenario, I would think you could follow *either* the GPL *or* the BSDL, but would probably need to include references at least to both licenses. Assuming this is the GPL v2, the BSDL grants a superset of these rights by pretty much every interpretation so it basically becomes the governing license. With the GPL v3, this is less clear (in particular, I am not sure GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2 can be excersized against BSDL code, so there may be uses for either license which are truly disjoint). IANAL though (at any rate noting that the code is dual-licensed. Anyway, it seems safer to continue to note that unaltered code is dual-licensed however.
Right. The last two are acceptable under the GPL v2 but RMS says that they are not acceptable under the GPL v3.
(Note, I believe that it is possible to scope an NDA such that it would be acceptable to the GPL v2 as well but that is a topic for another time.)
Now, for the Tivoization and the GPL v3, what the GPL v3 actually states is:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. Note that only the object code is required to be able to function and that it may not be prevented or interfered with simply because modification has been made.
In this case, the object code continues to function (i.e. run as it would otherwise), and it is not prevented or interfered from doing so any more than you are prevented from speaking in an auditorium by a lack of other people present (nor in fact would removing those people interfere with your ability to *speak* in that auditorium, just don't confuse the ability to *speak* with the ability to *be heard*).
One of the *big* business advantages of the BSDL for large-scale open source projects is that it prevents the sort of single-vendor control you seen in projects like Asterisk or MySQL.
In fact, depsite recognizing legitimate business reasons for choosing the GPL, I think that my business is such that the BSD license would actually be more appropriate for most of our work.
that there are legitimate business reasons for choosing the GPL (at least for version 2).
THe basic issue is that, while both the GPL and BSD licenses can effectively erode comercial competition, the latter requires a larger and more viable community to make it work. Hence while PostgreSQL has been able to kill every closed source verion that wanted to compete directly with it, releasing a previously proprietary add-in might be a harder sell if you are smaller than, say, EnterpriseDB... The GPL thus protects businesses that want to go partly open/free but want to retain control.
The flip side of this is that you can do a proprietary product which happens to be licensed under the GPL (for example, QT, MySQL, SQL-Ledger). You can't do that with a BSD license.
If you (as the copyright owner) included the copyrights in a GPLv3-licensed work, I would argue that you provided the work under the GPL v3 *in addition to* any other licenses. Hence that would be an additional software license which could allow for certain uses not otherwise allowed in the GPL but would not carry the restrictions when you were just following the GPL.
I.e. you can follow the GPL v3 *or* you can follow your other license. The restrictions of your license don't affect me if I choose the former, and these licenses are disjunct. This would be allowed (it is an additional permission and places no restrictions on the rights granted under the GPL). If you say that those occur in all events (even when using the GPL), then I can ignore that as an additional restriction.
If you included it and are not the copyright holder, then you don't have the right to grant such a license and there is a conflict.
But either way, if it cannot be clarified, the offending code should be removed.
Similarly, if you, as the copyright holder, include several MIT-licensed files, presumably one can relicense them under the GPL v3 because you provided a license to do so by including them in that work. If you are not the copyright holder, then I very much doubt that the license on the files included verbatem could be changed just by saying so. This would provide an additional restriction on the exersize of the removal of additional permissions and might not be allowed by the GPL v3.
Interestingly, this is only downward looking. I doubt anyone would push the issue too much if you released MIT-licensed code that linked against GNU Readline.
By chaning the license, I mean adding a new license header at the top which states that the governing license of the work is the GPL v3, but leaving the notice as required by the MITL intact.
Something like:
Distributed as part of package Foo (Copyright 2007 Chris Travers). The governing license of this file is now the GPL v3. See attached GPL3.txt for details.
Again, is this a permissive additional term to you (made up by me): In the context of a GPL v3 work, I would ask whether it was included by you in the GPL v3 work. If not, then there is a license conflict. If so, then that is in addition to the rights provided by the GPLv3 (i.e. you can follow the GPL v3 *or* you can follow those terms).
In either case it would be prudent to remove the questionable code.
No, the MIT licence provides downstream recepients the permission to use ("use" in terms of programming, of course) with the restriction that... So, what gives you the right to provide additional conditions as a matter of licensing? Or does the GPL become a contract at that point (so if I get your software and distribute it, then I lose my right contractually to extract out the excerpts you used with permission and use them under the original license terms).
If your roof has a leak, then you fix the leak. You don't board up the windows, lock the doors, and fill up the house with concrete. [Every version has loopholes] but there will be a progressive loss of liberties in the name of preserving freedom. Now, are we talking about the Bush Administration and the War on Terror or the FSF and the GPLv3/GDFL here?
No, the forced advocacy is being forced to publish, for example, the GNU Manifesto, in the supposedly "Free" (Documentation, as in Free Speech) EMACS manual.
The invariant sections in the GFDL exist specifically to force the distribution of GNU political advocacy materials with technical documentation.
So, suppose the only change I make is to the license, where I add a note that this is distributed as part of a larger work under the GPL v3, and that the additional permissions have been removed. Is that legal? Legally binding via copyright, contract (when the GPL v3 comes into force), etc?
TO satisfy the likes of Theo, why not put a header like:
NOTICE: This file is currently being modified by [authors] and any copyrights they may hold to the file are licensed under the GPL v3.
And then changing this when any substantive changes are made to a full copyright notice. Even THeo would have hard time complaining in a case like this.
I am not saying that GPL v2 or proprietary folks aren't legal.
The GPLv2 explicitly states that the license only applies when distributing the work as a whole, so if you distribute the BSDL portion separately, it is distributed under its original license. The GPL v3 is the one which ahs the problem.
Basically when MS and others use BSD code, they don't change the license on those specific copyright elements. Instead they add their own copyrighted elements and license those. The problem is that the GPL v3 is written in such a way as to suggest that licenses are compatible *only* if the copyrighted elements (including literal code fragments) can be "relicensed' (in RMS's words) so that the restrictions of the GPL apply to those specific fragments.
Your method is not necessary because the BSDL does not require any sort of statement as to *what* is licensed under it own license. You are adding your own code, so the file can be under whatever license you choose provided that you comply with the BSDL. However, it does *not* grant the ability to change the license of the software merely by making copies. IANAL, but this is pretty much the concensus of all but 1-2 lawyers on the OSI license-discuss list, and this raises serious questions as to whether the GPL v3 (only) has a serious compatibility problem.
There is no reason that Tivo can't change methods so that they can comply with the letter of the GPL v3. Now, Linux may be GPL v2, but something else could become GPL v3. As long as they provide sufficient instructions to get the software installed and without being actively interfered with, there is no reason why the box once updated has to have the same capabilities. All the stuff interfacing with the hardware could be gone, leaving you with a nice paperweight which is, in fact, executing the software in a vacuum. THis is made quite simply via the use of hypervisors (and is allowed under the mere aggregation clause of the GPL v3).
Think of it this way. The GPL v3 states that the modified software must be allowed to run on the hardware. It does *not* require that any other software is required to be present as well. Yes, you can speak in the auditorium, but nobody will be there to listen....
Given the fact that Stallman is not above making "forced advocacy" a part of the free speech he wants to associate with Free Software..... See my latest journal entry for details.
This is an occupational hazard of a conflict mentality, and Stallman's view of Freedom is no different from the Bush Administration's.
Cetainly St iGNUcious himself is all about faith and does not seem to care about logic or facts. The FSF is not just limited to such people however. I know a number of people who do advocate the GPL for reasons which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
My own opinion is that RMS has. like President Bush, come to see the world in terms of universal conflict where Freedom must be sacrificed in order to be preserved. Hence the GFDL has clauses which are designed to allow the FSF and others to *force* that certain advoacy documents are included with technical documentation (forced advocacy is fundamentally at odds with freedom of speech), and asked the chief architect of GNU (Thomas Bushnell) to resign for publically stating a similar opinion.
The original question was whether internal use within a company was always safe as regards the patent grant. IANAL but I think that is not the case and ceases to be the case where internal distribution occurs. I.e. if everyone downloads the GCC from the GNU web site, that is safe. If one person downloads it and puts it on a file share that is not.
The following paragraph defines "Convey" in the GPL v3:
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. 1) Is the former conveyance? Yes, but GNU is doing the conveying. 2) Is the latter conveyance? Depends on whether other employees are "other parties," and the company is doing the conveying.
As I will show (IANAL) the entire question hinges on whether separate employees are separate parties to the GPL v3. I would argue that they are for the same reason that an employee and the company could both be held liable of the employee otherwise conveys copyrighted software without permission on work computers.
The next question is whether the contractor clause applies (see section 2, paragraph 2):
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. The requirements involve making modifications to the software exclusively for you, and that it is limited to your own *copyrights.* In this case the company doesn't own the copyrights to the GCC so this does not apply.
Now let us look at the patent grant section (in section 11, paragraph 6):
If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it. THe requirement is that this relates to a single transaction or arrangement, that it involves conveying or procuring conveyance of the covered work, and that a patent license is granted. All three of these apply.
Is this a single transaction? no. Is it an arrangement? Yes, I would think. So far this applies.
Does it involve conveying? Yes (see above).
Is a patent license gratned to use the software? Yes, the company provides an implied patent license as part of the employment to use company patents solely for the scope fo the employment.
So in this case, it would seem quite possible to argue that at the instant the software is shared internally on a network, the company's patents are essentially granted for the use of that software and all derivative works of it, even if it is only used internally.
The GPL v3 basically says that for certain classes of devices, one must: 1) Provide installation instructions 2) Not interfere with the execution of a modified binary.
However, it still allows for aggregation in distribution, and so there is no reason why one can't require that a full aggregate of software (the full system image including hypervisor and all vm's) gets installed at once and that this collective or aggregate work must be signed as a whole. It thus allows unrestricted execution of a binary in a vacuum which more or less deprives it of any useful input or output because components on the other ends of pipes are simply not there.
"You may not interfere with so-and-so's ability to speak in a given auditorium" does not preclude making sure nobody *else* is in that auditorium.
The MIT license provides *all* downstream recipients of the copyrighted elements in question the permission to use according to that license without further restriction. Those permissions don't magically go away because someone decides to incorporate those elements into a work under a more restrictive license, but they are limited to those elements (including but not limited to literal code portions, non-literal elements in selection and ordering of compiled works, graphic design, and storylines in games) which are released under that license. This is why it starts off with "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge...."
Why would you think that a 7b legal notice which starts off with "permission is hereby granted" would not qualify as a permissive additional term?
The argument that the MIT license allows for arbitrary sublicensing (and hence effectively changing the license) is undermined by the fact that it explicitly grants these permissions to all downstream recipients, and that sublicensing tends to be used in this case for different works which, as a whole, require permission to reproduce. Hence if I write a program using some MIT licensed code, I can provide a sublicense for a software publishing house to publish my specific work provided that the MIT License is included in my code so that people know that the original author grants permission to use those licensed portions under more permissive terms.
The relevant portion of the GPL v2 is:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.[emphasis mine] Basically, if you can't allow royalty-free redistribution of the Program, then you can't distribute it, and any such activity is copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
You should RTFA :-)
Basically there are three major classes of capacitors at the moment. There are electrostatic capacitors (the little ceramic blocks sodlgered onto motherboards, fr example), electrolytic capacitors (the ones that can leak fluid). Ultracapacitors are similar to the electrolyic ones (and have an electrolytic mixture) but the technology underlying them is very different. Electrolytic capacitors use basically etched and oxidized aluminum foil, while current ultracapacitors use activated carbon. The article talks about using carbon nanotubes to further increase the surface area available for electron deposit.
While it could be possible that these could explode or leak fluid, I would think that this owuld largely be a question of casing electrolyte mixture, and the like. And due to the different structure I would think the chances would be far less.
When they say "sheds light" they almost mean it literally too, not that the magnet is glowing, but that it allows for lasers to shine through it. (I.e. the magnet design allows lasers to shed light on the superconductor.) ;-)
My solution doesn't change anything about hardware response. It changes something about what other *software* components are on a system, connected to the kernel via pipes managed by a hypervisor.
Think of it this way. Instead of Kernel hardware, you have (for certain hardware) a model much more like kernel Hpervisor "device" (really just a socket) DRM management software in another VM hardware.
I don't see anyehere that says that the hardware vendor has to keep all other portions of the *software* in place just because one piece is upgraded.
Now, as far as Tivo is concerned, since the Linux kernel is just GPL v2, they can do the same thing, substituting the Linux kernel and drivers (possibly using nVidia-style bridges to proprietary drivers) in place of the hypervisor. Sure, you can change your glibc, but if you do, you also have to replace every other piece of software yourself, and some of the modules connecting to the GPL v2 kernel might not load if you use the publically available key.
Licenses are disunct. With one possible exception, you can choose which license to follow.
The possible exception may be the copyright notice which states which licenses you can choose to follow. For instance just because I use this dual-licensed code and distribute it, doesn't mean that it ceases to be dual-licensed if someone pulls out the Sun code out of my application.
Under the GPL and BSD scenario, I would think you could follow *either* the GPL *or* the BSDL, but would probably need to include references at least to both licenses. Assuming this is the GPL v2, the BSDL grants a superset of these rights by pretty much every interpretation so it basically becomes the governing license. With the GPL v3, this is less clear (in particular, I am not sure GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2 can be excersized against BSDL code, so there may be uses for either license which are truly disjoint). IANAL though (at any rate noting that the code is dual-licensed. Anyway, it seems safer to continue to note that unaltered code is dual-licensed however.
(Note, I believe that it is possible to scope an NDA such that it would be acceptable to the GPL v2 as well but that is a topic for another time.)
Now, for the Tivoization and the GPL v3, what the GPL v3 actually states is: "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. Note that only the object code is required to be able to function and that it may not be prevented or interfered with simply because modification has been made.
In this case, the object code continues to function (i.e. run as it would otherwise), and it is not prevented or interfered from doing so any more than you are prevented from speaking in an auditorium by a lack of other people present (nor in fact would removing those people interfere with your ability to *speak* in that auditorium, just don't confuse the ability to *speak* with the ability to *be heard*).
I didn't say there weren't.
One of the *big* business advantages of the BSDL for large-scale open source projects is that it prevents the sort of single-vendor control you seen in projects like Asterisk or MySQL.
In fact, depsite recognizing legitimate business reasons for choosing the GPL, I think that my business is such that the BSD license would actually be more appropriate for most of our work.
that there are legitimate business reasons for choosing the GPL (at least for version 2).
THe basic issue is that, while both the GPL and BSD licenses can effectively erode comercial competition, the latter requires a larger and more viable community to make it work. Hence while PostgreSQL has been able to kill every closed source verion that wanted to compete directly with it, releasing a previously proprietary add-in might be a harder sell if you are smaller than, say, EnterpriseDB... The GPL thus protects businesses that want to go partly open/free but want to retain control.
The flip side of this is that you can do a proprietary product which happens to be licensed under the GPL (for example, QT, MySQL, SQL-Ledger). You can't do that with a BSD license.
Ok. here is more information.
If you (as the copyright owner) included the copyrights in a GPLv3-licensed work, I would argue that you provided the work under the GPL v3 *in addition to* any other licenses. Hence that would be an additional software license which could allow for certain uses not otherwise allowed in the GPL but would not carry the restrictions when you were just following the GPL.
I.e. you can follow the GPL v3 *or* you can follow your other license. The restrictions of your license don't affect me if I choose the former, and these licenses are disjunct. This would be allowed (it is an additional permission and places no restrictions on the rights granted under the GPL). If you say that those occur in all events (even when using the GPL), then I can ignore that as an additional restriction.
If you included it and are not the copyright holder, then you don't have the right to grant such a license and there is a conflict.
But either way, if it cannot be clarified, the offending code should be removed.
Similarly, if you, as the copyright holder, include several MIT-licensed files, presumably one can relicense them under the GPL v3 because you provided a license to do so by including them in that work. If you are not the copyright holder, then I very much doubt that the license on the files included verbatem could be changed just by saying so. This would provide an additional restriction on the exersize of the removal of additional permissions and might not be allowed by the GPL v3.
Interestingly, this is only downward looking. I doubt anyone would push the issue too much if you released MIT-licensed code that linked against GNU Readline.
That is my point. This is exactly my concern over license compatibility.
Yes, we are both laymen.
By chaning the license, I mean adding a new license header at the top which states that the governing license of the work is the GPL v3, but leaving the notice as required by the MITL intact.
Something like:
Distributed as part of package Foo (Copyright 2007 Chris Travers). The governing license of this file is now the GPL v3. See attached GPL3.txt for details.
In either case it would be prudent to remove the questionable code. No, the MIT licence provides downstream recepients the permission to use ("use" in terms of programming, of course) with the restriction that... So, what gives you the right to provide additional conditions as a matter of licensing? Or does the GPL become a contract at that point (so if I get your software and distribute it, then I lose my right contractually to extract out the excerpts you used with permission and use them under the original license terms).
No, the forced advocacy is being forced to publish, for example, the GNU Manifesto, in the supposedly "Free" (Documentation, as in Free Speech) EMACS manual.
The invariant sections in the GFDL exist specifically to force the distribution of GNU political advocacy materials with technical documentation.
So, suppose the only change I make is to the license, where I add a note that this is distributed as part of a larger work under the GPL v3, and that the additional permissions have been removed. Is that legal? Legally binding via copyright, contract (when the GPL v3 comes into force), etc?
I don't think it is ever necessary.
TO satisfy the likes of Theo, why not put a header like:
NOTICE: This file is currently being modified by [authors] and any copyrights they may hold to the file are licensed under the GPL v3.
And then changing this when any substantive changes are made to a full copyright notice. Even THeo would have hard time complaining in a case like this.
I am not saying that GPL v2 or proprietary folks aren't legal.
The GPLv2 explicitly states that the license only applies when distributing the work as a whole, so if you distribute the BSDL portion separately, it is distributed under its original license. The GPL v3 is the one which ahs the problem.
Basically when MS and others use BSD code, they don't change the license on those specific copyright elements. Instead they add their own copyrighted elements and license those. The problem is that the GPL v3 is written in such a way as to suggest that licenses are compatible *only* if the copyrighted elements (including literal code fragments) can be "relicensed' (in RMS's words) so that the restrictions of the GPL apply to those specific fragments.
Your method is not necessary because the BSDL does not require any sort of statement as to *what* is licensed under it own license. You are adding your own code, so the file can be under whatever license you choose provided that you comply with the BSDL. However, it does *not* grant the ability to change the license of the software merely by making copies. IANAL, but this is pretty much the concensus of all but 1-2 lawyers on the OSI license-discuss list, and this raises serious questions as to whether the GPL v3 (only) has a serious compatibility problem.
Not really.
There is no reason that Tivo can't change methods so that they can comply with the letter of the GPL v3. Now, Linux may be GPL v2, but something else could become GPL v3. As long as they provide sufficient instructions to get the software installed and without being actively interfered with, there is no reason why the box once updated has to have the same capabilities. All the stuff interfacing with the hardware could be gone, leaving you with a nice paperweight which is, in fact, executing the software in a vacuum. THis is made quite simply via the use of hypervisors (and is allowed under the mere aggregation clause of the GPL v3).
Think of it this way. The GPL v3 states that the modified software must be allowed to run on the hardware. It does *not* require that any other software is required to be present as well. Yes, you can speak in the auditorium, but nobody will be there to listen....
Yeah, I noticed that.
How many people immediately get the impression that this is like watching Fox News?
"Why do they hate freedom?"
Given the fact that Stallman is not above making "forced advocacy" a part of the free speech he wants to associate with Free Software..... See my latest journal entry for details.
This is an occupational hazard of a conflict mentality, and Stallman's view of Freedom is no different from the Bush Administration's.
Cetainly St iGNUcious himself is all about faith and does not seem to care about logic or facts. The FSF is not just limited to such people however. I know a number of people who do advocate the GPL for reasons which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
My own opinion is that RMS has. like President Bush, come to see the world in terms of universal conflict where Freedom must be sacrificed in order to be preserved. Hence the GFDL has clauses which are designed to allow the FSF and others to *force* that certain advoacy documents are included with technical documentation (forced advocacy is fundamentally at odds with freedom of speech), and asked the chief architect of GNU (Thomas Bushnell) to resign for publically stating a similar opinion.
The following paragraph defines "Convey" in the GPL v3: To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. 1) Is the former conveyance? Yes, but GNU is doing the conveying.
2) Is the latter conveyance? Depends on whether other employees are "other parties," and the company is doing the conveying.
As I will show (IANAL) the entire question hinges on whether separate employees are separate parties to the GPL v3. I would argue that they are for the same reason that an employee and the company could both be held liable of the employee otherwise conveys copyrighted software without permission on work computers.
The next question is whether the contractor clause applies (see section 2, paragraph 2): You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. The requirements involve making modifications to the software exclusively for you, and that it is limited to your own *copyrights.* In this case the company doesn't own the copyrights to the GCC so this does not apply.
Now let us look at the patent grant section (in section 11, paragraph 6): If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it. THe requirement is that this relates to a single transaction or arrangement, that it involves conveying or procuring conveyance of the covered work, and that a patent license is granted. All three of these apply.
Is this a single transaction? no. Is it an arrangement? Yes, I would think. So far this applies.
Does it involve conveying? Yes (see above).
Is a patent license gratned to use the software? Yes, the company provides an implied patent license as part of the employment to use company patents solely for the scope fo the employment.
So in this case, it would seem quite possible to argue that at the instant the software is shared internally on a network, the company's patents are essentially granted for the use of that software and all derivative works of it, even if it is only used internally.
IANAL, TINLA, etc.
Interestinglt I advocate the GPL in a particular version (2). I also think the GPL v3 is... well... not something I can politely say.
The GPL v3 basically says that for certain classes of devices, one must:
1) Provide installation instructions
2) Not interfere with the execution of a modified binary.
However, it still allows for aggregation in distribution, and so there is no reason why one can't require that a full aggregate of software (the full system image including hypervisor and all vm's) gets installed at once and that this collective or aggregate work must be signed as a whole. It thus allows unrestricted execution of a binary in a vacuum which more or less deprives it of any useful input or output because components on the other ends of pipes are simply not there.
"You may not interfere with so-and-so's ability to speak in a given auditorium" does not preclude making sure nobody *else* is in that auditorium.
The MIT license provides *all* downstream recipients of the copyrighted elements in question the permission to use according to that license without further restriction. Those permissions don't magically go away because someone decides to incorporate those elements into a work under a more restrictive license, but they are limited to those elements (including but not limited to literal code portions, non-literal elements in selection and ordering of compiled works, graphic design, and storylines in games) which are released under that license. This is why it starts off with "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge...."
Why would you think that a 7b legal notice which starts off with "permission is hereby granted" would not qualify as a permissive additional term?
The argument that the MIT license allows for arbitrary sublicensing (and hence effectively changing the license) is undermined by the fact that it explicitly grants these permissions to all downstream recipients, and that sublicensing tends to be used in this case for different works which, as a whole, require permission to reproduce. Hence if I write a program using some MIT licensed code, I can provide a sublicense for a software publishing house to publish my specific work provided that the MIT License is included in my code so that people know that the original author grants permission to use those licensed portions under more permissive terms.
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.[emphasis mine] Basically, if you can't allow royalty-free redistribution of the Program, then you can't distribute it, and any such activity is copyright infringement.