Re: Open Software License v2.1
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
>> >> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
>> >> I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
>> >> giving theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back
>> >> room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
>> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > You seem to be describing the difference between a public domain work
>> > and a copyleft work, with the claim that copyleft software isn't free.
>> > Can you express your concept differently, in a way which doesn't include
>> > this kind of nonsense?
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:46:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> This isn't nonsense.
> The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
invite you to quote where you think I've done so.
>> A copyleft license unambiguously releases rights for me to modify
>> and distribute.
>> I don't have to sacrifice *anything at all* which I had otherwise.
> If you have a patent which applies to the program, and you want to
> distribute, you have to grant a license to that patent to all third
Having just read GPL 7 again, to make sure I'm doing this right, I
think I can just issue a license to use the patent for a given
purpose, and that's enough. I'm not completely certain of that.
I'm sure I only have to grant a license to that patent to all parties
who receive a copy of the work.
I'm further pretty sure that I only have to grant a license to that
patent to all parties who receive a copy *from me*. The fact that
nobody else can distribute isn't my problem; GPL 7 only applies to me,
I don't have to ensure they can meet it too.
> Ok, if you don't want to modify and distribute, then this doesn't apply
> to you, but that's another issue.
>> This copy-to-patentleft sort of licence says I have to refrain from
>> enforcing the patent rights which I had independent of the work,
>> or I don't get a copyright license.
> I'll grant that not enforcing patent rights in the context of that
> specific work against a few specific parties is not as comprehensive
> as granting unlimited rights to the patent to all third parties.
>> That's no good.
> What's not good?
> The scenario you seem to propose looks to me like this:
First, B files for a patent and publishes an invention. For the sake
of argument, say it's something legitimately innovative.
> A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
> patent restricted, and sues A. B wins, and now only B can distribute the
> software -- A can't [and no one else can] without buying a license from B.
> You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents this scenario is not
> good, and that the reason it's not good is that it prevents this scenario.
It might be good. It isn't free. If it is free, why isn't the
: A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
: on his hard drive, and sues A for that drive. B wins, and now only
: B can distribute the software -- A can't [and no one else can]
: without getting a license from B.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com