Re: Open Software License v2.1
Michael Poole <email@example.com> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free
>> software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade,
>> not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions
>> on the behavior of licensees of allegedly free software?
> I think the benefit to free software is obvious: Someone who uses free
> software with the kind of termination clause in OSLv2.1 cannot restrict
> its use to himself by making patent infringement claims over it.
... not even if he owns a valid patent to it.
>> PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled
>> the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a
>> patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much. It's
>> the cancellation of the license for even seeking impartial justice
>> that bothers me.
> Why is the type of the withheld license important?
I'm not sure it is, in this example. Well. It's important because
this is all part of a crusade against software patents taken too far
into a crusade against patents which happen to apply to software. But
it's not important for what I want to express. The starred bits are
important, and should probably be phrased like this:
It think it's free to terminate a public license completely and
universally as soon as anybody brings and wins any suit against any
party that claims that the work using some patented technology.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org