Re: Open Software License v2.1

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:20:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:38:51AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > False. Go and read the MS EULA.
> > 
> > You write as if there were only one.
> 
> They're all mostly the same.

[1] enumerates what you may and may not do with the covered material,
and provides no lever for Microsoft to unilaterally terminate your
license.  Same for [2] and [3].  These are, roughly, the first three
distinct Google hits for "Microsoft end user license agreement."

[1]- http://www.microsoft.com/products/msagent/licensing/eula.asp
[2]- http://www.msdnaa.net/EULA/NA/English.aspx#eula
[3]- http://www.rtr.com/fpsupport/fp2002eula.htm

Since one cannot prove a negative, I hope you will substantiate your
claim that some Microsoft EULA lets them terminate your license on
whim.  (The alternative reading of "anything the copyright holder
doesn't like" would make copyleft licenses non-free, so I assume you
meant the copyright holder may define license violations at any time.)

> > > Also wrong, despite attempts at word games. The GPL gives all
> > > licensees access to the source, and nothing to the copyright holder
> > > (unless they coincidentally happen to be a licensee of a modified
> > > version). This is a necessary condition for it to be free; if it
> > > actually gave access to the source to the copyright holder then it
> > > would not be free. An example of a non-free license along these lines
> > > is the old NPL.
> > 
> > You have yet to establish why this argument applies to the kind of
> > patent lawsuit clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
> > all licensees equally.
> 
> You have yet to establish what your argument has got to do with the
> price of tea in China.

Stop acting like a troll.  If you don't want to argue the point,
concede it.

Michael Poole