Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Simon, > > Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or > distributor being sued for not having "sent a postcard" for the > style of RF license you are objecting to? Brian, two responses: 1) You seem to assume that GPL implementers would violate the patent license by redistributing their code without sending a postcard. In order words, your question assumes and implies bad-faith amongst GPL implementers. What typically happens in practice, among good-faith practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or Mozilla, or ...) implementation of the patented technology at all, because the necessary rights cannot be acquired. 1) I don't believe this is a 'send a postcard' license. If you read Mark's patent license, it starts with: "Upon request, RedPhone Security will ... I interpret this to mean that unless RedPhone responds to your requests, you have not received any rights. Is this incorrect? There are examples where companies won't respond to requests for these type of RF patent licenses. A recent example that came to mind was related to the BOCU patent by IBM: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.text.unicode.devel/23256 A different problem is if the patent is owned by a small company, and the company goes away. Still, I'm not sure even a "send-a-postcard" patent license would be compatible with free software licenses. Sending the postcard appear to be an additional requirement, something that some free software licenses explicitly forbid. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf