Re: Open Software License v2.1
Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no
> restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to
> bargain in a license, to say "I'll give you a license to this stuff,
> but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own" are
> non-free. All this messing about with termination clauses is just an
> attempt to strike that bargain. It's a pretty fair bargain, too --
> it's just not free.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to be any of
the licenses we've mentioned here. None of them require you to grant a
patent license to the licensor of the software you're using, as far as I
can tell.
In any case, I don't think that argument follows. The GPL says "You may
distribute this code, providing you don't fail to provide the source"
(assuming 3a rather than any other form of distribution). The MPL says
"You may use this code, providing you don't sue us for patent
infringement related to this code". Both place limitations on your
ability to exercise rights. We allow the GPL's limitation because we
believe it furthers free software. We haven't had a proper discussion
about whether termination clauses of this nature help or hinder free
software. If you'd like to have that discussion, then -project is the
right place to see it happen.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: