Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>:
> > > 1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede
> > > that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free
> > > software than traditional patents.
>
> > Why should that matter in your eyes?
>
> Because, we're talking about proticting oneself from threats, not
> about getting a free ride on everybody else's other kinds of patents.
The difference between those two cases would appear to be a political
value judgement.
> > > 2) The only thing that terminates here is patent licences - which is
> > > separate from the copyright license spoken about by the DFSG.
>
> > If there is a patent on anything in the software, then it amounts to
> > the same thing.
>
> No - because the DFSG is basically about *copyright* licensing.
Is it? Then why does the DFSG not even mention "copyright"?
> The
> existence of a patent may render the software undistributable at all,
> but that's not a quistion of whether it's copyright license is free or
> not.
The document we are discussing is not just a copyright licence. In
fact, like the DFSG, it doesn't even refer to copyright (except one
mention in the exhibit).
> > However, the cat is out of the bag, everyone accepts these licenses as
> > free (even the FSF),
>
> I haven't seen anybody accept the license we're talking about here as
> free.
But the IBM licence has been accepted as free, and it seems to be
rather similar. Yes, the RIACA licence goes a bit further, but I can't
see a major qualitative difference between the two cases.
Edmund
Reply to: