"From 2003 until July 2006, Microsoft published
specific licensing terms for its FAT patents on its website (that
information was scrubbed, but a cached copy is available on
achive.org.) Those terms capped per unit revenue costs at
US$250,000, and open-source legal experts (Allison, Moglen) have
told me that a set maximum royalty price would be compatible with
the GPL. Unlimited per unit royalties would violate GPL v2, and any
revenue sharing with its licensees would violate GPL v3. "Why
Microsoft does not issue a statement to the effect that GPL terms
were not violated by agreements leaves me scratching my head. If
those were the terms, and the GPL was not violated, the speculation
and bad publicity would be put to rest. Given its response, I'm led
to think that if GPL terms were not violated by the FAT licensing,
Microsoft would issue a statement to that effect. Its silence on
this issue says a lot."
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.