On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:57:49PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > > > Long-standing conclusions, summarised: > > > > > > > > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or > > > > whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for > > > > any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get > > > > contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions have to be > > > > considered like any other restriction (invert the sense of the > > > > conditional to get the restriction). > > > > > > > > Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple > > > > license, is probably non-free. DFSG-free licenses give things to the > > > > licensee, not to the copyright holder. They are not a trade (although > > > > the grant of permissions does not have to be the most generous > > > > possible), even if their social behaviour resembles one. > > > > > > > > (Corollary of these two: terminating a license for any reason other > > > > than non-compliance is probably non-free) > > > > > > Other corollary: Claiming something is a "contract-like provision" is > > > a useful wedge to make something like the GPL a non-free license. > > > > That's a summary of an old discussion which apparently you didn't > > read. Redefining it arbitrary to something else will obviously > > generate an arbitrary result. > > Then please stop arbitrarily defining "contract-like provision" to > what is convenient for you. Why? It's just a label which I introduced to reference something. There is nothing special about the label. I could have called it "Fortesque" for all that it matters. It is invalid for you to change the definitions of my labels around and then claim that the argument doesn't hold. > I think you are extending the conclusion of that discussion beyond the > point where it is supportable; there are fairly clear differences > between "You must do X to get these rights" and "You lose these rights > if you do Y," especially when Y prevents others from exercising those > same rights. No there aren't. It's a trivial inversion. > By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you > attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work. This is not true, nor does it approximate something which is true. > > > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is > > > > non-free. > > > > > > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant. > > > > Congratulations, you missed the point. > > I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it > productive to make an unsupported insult like that? Because it might cause you to think about what I wrote *before* you reply, rather than replying without comprehension. I cannot be the one who missed the point; it was my point. That's just nuts. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature