Re: Open Software License v2.1
> >> > 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.
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.]
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:58:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
Sure.
But you seem to have claimed that "this scenario has no bearing on the
freeness of the license" might not be correct.
Ok, there might be more than one reason for a license to be free or
non-free -- but the possibility that more than one reason exists doesn't
seem to make an irrelevant scenario relevant.
> 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.
Huh?
I'm not asking you to draw any such conclusion. For all I know, you
might be right about the osl-2.1 license being non-free.
I just want to see a convincing argument that this is the case before I
agree to any such thing. [And, I don't consider "an irrelevant argument"
to be "a convincing argument".]
> Is that the basic idea?
No.
I'm claiming that your argument -- which makes all instances of the
program in question non-free, regardless of the license -- has no bearing
on the freeness of the license.
If "X is irrelevant to Y", then X does not prove Y, and X does not
disprove Y.
> 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.
I'm not convinced that this example is related in any relevant sense.
You've not identified the reason that this example is non-free, so I'm
reserving judgement on whether that reason applies to the patent case.
> > 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?
I identified several scenarios, and you ask about "that scenario"...
I'm going to guess and go for this one:
> >> >> > 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.
As stated, the scenario is misleading:
B can't satisfy the GPL while distributing the program without granting
transitive rights to the patent.
In other words, there's two potential cases: the software is not
distributed at all [the typical case], or it's distributed under the
original terms [with B not benefiting from the lawsuit].
Let's try this -- YOU present a scenario which illustrates the non-free
nature of osl-2.1.
--
Raul
Reply to: