Re: Open Software License v2.1
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license,
>> > then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus,
>> > this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason it should be
>> accepted as obviously true.
>
> Where, specifically, do you disagree? [Let's take it for granted that
> if you disagree with an antecedent that you feel that the consequent
> is illogical.]
Something can be non-free for many reasons. If it is non-free
regardless of the copyright license, and under a non-free copyright
license, then it is nonsensical to speak of a single reason that it is
non-free.
I think I see what conclusion you'd like me to reach, though -- that a
copyright license which is sometimes free and sometimes non-free, but
only non-free in cases where the software in question is already
non-free anyway, is a free license. Is that the basic idea? If so, I
almost believe it. Almost, but not quite. By way of comparison,
consider a GPL-like license which additionally prohibited private
modification to include non-GPL-compatible works written by others --
that is, to prohibit making any thing you could not distribute under
the GPL out of parts you have only under the GPL.
That's non-free, and this is non-free for the same reason.
>> >> > 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 following free:
>> >>
>> >> : 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.
>> >
>> > This scenario of yours has nothing to do with the freeness of the
>> > license.
>>
>> It's just your patent scenario from above, rephrased to deal with
>> physical property.
>
> That's not "my patent scenario", that's "my paraphrase of your patent
> scenario". I'm claiming that the scenario is invalid, your rephrasing
> of it didn't make it valid.
What's invalid about that scenario? I understand that you object to
the conclusions drawn from it, but now you claim that the hypothetical
itself is invalid. What does this mean?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: