Re: Open Software License v2.1

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:

> So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
> minority.  But that means that those people do have a legitimate
> recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
> And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is no more
> free than a license which compels them to surrender any other recourse
> to the courts.

OK.  Suppose there exists a patent on a mathematical algorithm (call it
"RSA").  Suppose that RSA is implemented by Joe in the program joe-rsa, and
he licenses his copyright under a free software license.

Suppose then that the RSA patent holders hold a legitimate patent (not
freely licensed).  Then joe-rsa was never free, regardless of what license
Joe issued it under, so the license contents are irrelevant.

Suppose instead that the RSA patent holders hold a legitimate patent, freely
licensed.  Then Joe will have permission to implement RSA (this is pretty
much required for a free patent license), so the RSA patent holders will
not sue.  (Wait.  I thought of a case: suppose the patent license requires
a statement of credit -- and that's considered free -- and joe-rsa doesn't
contain the credit statement.  Then the RSA patent holders would sue to
enforce their free patent license, and lose their free copyright
license.... hmm, that could actually be a problem).

Suppose instead that the RSA patent holders hold only illegitimate patents. 
Then the patent-retaliation clause is very clearly in the best interests of
free software, and the license is Free.

In other words, the patent-retaliation clause only imposes a burden in the
cases where 
(a) the work is already non-free for other reasons
or
(b) the people being burdened are being abusive
(Barring the case I just thought of above, which might be an actual
problem.)

Accordingly, it is acceptable in a free license, no?

-- 
This space intentionally left blank.