Re: Open Software License v2.1
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
>>
>> > This isn't claiming that the works of Alice or Bob are infringing
>> > copyright; it's claiming that Charlie is infringing copyright.
>> > Neither Alice nor Bob face license termination for each other's
>> > work for suing Charlie over Charlie's use of those works; they'd
>> > only lose the license to Charlie's derivative work.
>> >
>> > Or at least they shouldn't, if this type of license is implemented
>> > properly.
>>
>> But that's where patents differ from copyright -- they have no concept
>> of derivative works, only of protected methods. So if you sue
>> claiming that the implementation in Charlie's is bad, you're also
>> claiming the implementation in Alice's is bad. This is suing "the
>> Licensor or any licensee" over that implementation. The suit is
>> *motivated* by failure to comply with the license, but it's over
>> patent infringement in Alice or Bob's code.
>
> You're mixing your examples in a way unclear to me, especially by
> adding a vague "you" to the three-party example you started with.
>
> A) If "you" are Alice and sue Charlie for patent infringement, and he
> has complied with your open patent license, he can use that license
> as a defense.
You left out the interesting case -- Alice sues Charlie for patent
infringement, and he has not complied with her license.
>> > Take a simpler case. Alice writes a program. Bill contributes
>> > somewhat to it--enough to have a copyright claim. John takes the
>> > result, and violates the license. Bill sues John for violating
>> > his part of the copyright. Does Bill lose his license to Alice's
>> > work? No; he's not saying that Alice's work is in violation,
>> > he's saying that John is in violation (through his act of distributing
>> > without eg. offering source).
>>
>> But you can't sue for license violation, not of a free license -- all
>> you can do is sue for patent infringement. So he does, in the patent
>> case, have to claim infringement of his patent on that method.
>
> Perhaps you should inform IBM that they cannot sue SCO for GPL
> violations, as they are currently doing -- or clarify what you mean by
> "you can't sue for license violation, not of a free license." See
> also the Netfilter team's recent copyright lawsuit in Germany.
As far as I know, IBM is suing SCO for copyright infringement, and
they both agree that the GPL has nothing to do with it -- SCO because
it says the GPL isn't binding, IBM because it says SCO wasn't
doing things the GPL licenses.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: