Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Matthew Garrett writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>>"DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
>>isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily." --
>>Bruce Perens, "Is Your Software In Danger of Termination?" at
> Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
> of circumstances)?
>>It's also a practical difficulty, as we hope to be able to archive
>>debian releases in their released state:
> Which is also a problem if a patent becomes actively enforced having
> been previously docile.
The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
allow the author to terminate the license unilaterally. On the other
hand, I think it is contrary to free software's philosophy and goals
to require the author to defend or indemnify anyone else's use or
distribution of the software if a third party raises patent claims.
I have heard that the FSF believes that distributing software under
the GPL implies some sort of grant if the author owns any patent
rights over methods used in the software. If this is correct, the
author could not terminate software licenses due to patent claims.
However, some do not believe such an implicit grant exists.