Re: Open Software License v2.1
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is
>> legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece
>> of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your patent
>> are
>> both Free and desirable.
>
> That is a bug with some jurisdictions, not a problem in copyright law.
Yes, this is true. Fixing the jurisdictions ranges from impossible to a
20-year project, however.
> Attempting to use copyright law to fix all the world's ills is a short
> road to madness.
Good thing we're not doing that then.
> If you are in a swpat-afflicted place, then losing
> your patent licence is sufficient to forbid use, as I understand it.
> There seems little need to confuse copyright and patent laws.
The purpose, as I see it, is specifically to prevent a method of taking a
program proprietary.
> Do these terms try to change the usual presumption that no-one has
> wronged anyone? Bogus copyright accusations are also illegitimate, yet
> the GPL does not state that you can't continue to use a piece of free
> software while merely *claiming* that it infringes your copyright.
Claiming *in court*.
> Does any free software copyright licence contain a "copyright defence"
> clause similar to these "patent defence" clauses?
No. I do not see it as a substantially different situation, though.
Suppose B alleges that the distribution of work X by "copyright holder" A
under the GPL is illegitimate because, according to B, B, not A, holds
copyright in work X.
In that case nobody has permission to distribute X, because the copyright
holder (B) has not given permission.
Now, if B alleges that both A and B hold copyrights in X, then the
interesting result is that B has permission to use A's work, but nobody
else does. This seems unreasonable and unfair. Terminating B's license
evens things out again.
The situation where this might be undesirable, and a retaliation clause bad,
is if B is already issuing B's work under a free license to everyone. In
this case B should perhaps be free to sue A for violation of the free
license's terms, without losing his license to A's work.
OK, I've convinced myself that copyright defence clauses are bad because of
this situation. In the analogous case for patents, I'm wavering. The
difference is that I'm not sure there's such a thing as a fair free license
for a software patent which has *any* restrictions at *all*. Possibly an
attribution requirement -- but perhaps not, given that a patent can control
totally independent invention of the same thing, and in that case
attribution is not warranted.
> Are there copyright
> clauses which forbid even participating in copyright cases about that
> work?
Obviously not. The patent clauses don't do that either, so this is quite
irrelevant.
> Have they been or would they be regarded as following DFSG?
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: