Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
> >> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing
> > about schrodinger's cat.
> >
> > If you win the lawsuit, then you're right, it's not a free license, and no
> > one should be distributing the software because it's illegal software.
> > [Though it might be possible to distribute the software under some
> > proprietary license if the patent holder(s) and the copyright holder(s)
> > cooperate.]
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:48:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> And if I don't have a license to those copyrights after that lawsuit,
> then I never had a free license in the first place.
And this is true regardless of the license.
No license should be considered non-free for an issue which makes the
software non-free regardless of the license.
> > If you don't win the lawsuit, then the suit was bogus, and you've
> > inflicted bogus costs on me. I don't see any argument that the license
> > is not free in this case.
>
> That's certainly true. But it should be left to the courts and
> evolving intellectual capital law.
Which costs money. [Unless you are your own lawyer -- but then it still
costs time, and probably still costs you money, just not as much.]
If this specific basis [legal matter foo should be left to the courts]
makes a license non-free, you could just as well claim that no warranty
clauses make a license non-free, and that no warranty clauses make a
license non free.
--
Raul
Reply to: