Re: Open Software License v2.1
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the
> > author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the
> > software. I am not sure why some people think the latter is
> > objectionable, since it is similar in spirit and effect to the GPL's
> > termination case
>
> I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
> is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you
> can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like).
This is not true, and it does not approximate anything that is true.
> Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright
> holder.
Under this line of argument, the GPL is non-free because it gives the
copyright holder a promise that the licensee will redistribute the
work (in original or modified form) in source code to anyone the
licensee gives a copy to.
Michael Poole
Reply to: