Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]
Scripsit 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.
> I think the purpose of the clause is not to punish patenteers but to
> protect the authors.
There is no protection to be gained here, unless the authors want
protection for their own unlawful patent infringements.
Patents that concern the licenced software itself are covered by
8.2(a), which, I think is unproblematic.
> 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?
Wrong analogy. The above says that that if you steal somebody's
car and they demand it back they lose the right to the software.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på
folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem,
som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det,
jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags."
Reply to: