Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-14 23:38:26 +0100 Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
The OSI lists no licences as "free".
While pedantically true, I claim this is irrelevant on the basis of
the similarity between the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. The
only significant difference is that different groups interpret them.
I think the significant difference is that OSD is a checklist, while
DFSG are a set of guidelines. Further, DFSG are interpreted in public,
while OSD appears to be checked mostly in private with the case in
favour of approval made by a hired lawyer.
Whose patent would make a difference to the FSF?
I believe they regard the software as not free when it is subject to
any encumberment harmful to free software. I've written before about
the problems getting licensing@gnu to answer. In January, I was told
licensing@gnu is seeking clarification from their licensing committee,
but I've not heard back yet.
Loss of patent license means the user cannot use the software. Loss
of copyright license (at least in the USA) only removes the license of
a user to modify or copy the software further. [...]
Maybe it's not narrower for the USA then. Your law is not my law. I've
elaborated on this in the OSL thread this morning.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep
Reply to: