On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > What we are trying to prevent is a patent owner submitting a > contribution that includes the patented or patent-pending material > for the purpose of later suing those who use the larger work. The > patent itself might not even be granted yet, let alone be publicly > known. That particular goal is quite acceptable (and a very good idea, IMO.) The primary issue debian-legal has with this clause is the Reciprocity aspect of it. A clause that enables the license to a piece of IP in a piece of Free Software to be revokable is a useage restriction, and as such, not DSFG Free.[1] [It fails DFSG #5 and #6.] Hopefully that clears this up some. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves, or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured stnking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so thouroughly that it had to be condemed and later demolished. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature