Re: Open Software License v2.1
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
> >> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
> >> I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
> >> giving theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back
> >> room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > You seem to be describing the difference between a public domain work
> > and a copyleft work, with the claim that copyleft software isn't free.
> >
> > Can you express your concept differently, in a way which doesn't include
> > this kind of nonsense?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:46:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> This isn't nonsense.
The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
> A copyleft license unambiguously releases rights for me to modify
> and distribute.
Sure.
> I don't have to sacrifice *anything at all* which I had otherwise.
If you have a patent which applies to the program, and you want to
distribute, you have to grant a license to that patent to all third
parties.
Ok, if you don't want to modify and distribute, then this doesn't apply
to you, but that's another issue.
> This copy-to-patentleft sort of licence says I have to refrain from
> enforcing the patent rights which I had independent of the work,
> or I don't get a copyright license.
I'll grant that not enforcing patent rights in the context of that
specific work against a few specific parties is not as comprehensive
as granting unlimited rights to the patent to all third parties.
> That's no good.
What's not good?
The scenario you seem to propose looks to me like this:
A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
patent restricted, and sues A. B wins, and now only B can distribute the
software -- A can't [and no one else can] without buying a license from B.
You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents this scenario is not
good, and that the reason it's not good is that it prevents this scenario.
So far, I'm not convinced.
--
Raul
Reply to: