Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>:

> > http://crystal.win.tue.nl/license/rpl.html
> 
> Clause 8.2(b) seems to be a showstopper:
> 
> | 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement
> | claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer
> | or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom
> | You file such action is referred to as "Participant")  alleging that:
> 
> | (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's
> | Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then
> | any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b)
> | and 2.2(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used,
> | sold, distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that
> | Participant.
> 
> which apparently says that if I have *any patent at all* (especially
> if unrelated to the program) I must give the software authors free
> access to my patent in return for using, distributing &c. their
> program.
> 
> I would consider that "discriminating against a field of endeavor" -
> namely the field that consists of making genuinely relevant and
> legitimate technical innovations and collect money from patent
> licenses.

I think the purpose of the clause is not to punish patenteers but to
protect the authors. You might argue that the clause has gone too far
and become disciminatory, but I think I could just about accept it as
justifiable self-protection rather than "discriminating against"
patenteers.

I agree that the clause would be problematic for some potential
authors and users, but I can't really agree with the idea that a
person who tries to protect themselves against a certain kind of legal
attack is guilty of discrimination.

Like, if I said that someone who murders somebody loses the right to
use my software, that would be discrimination (against murderers), but
if I said that someone who murders me loses the right to use my
software, that would be (a paranoid and futile attempt at)
self-protection. Or would you call that discrimination, too?

Edmund