Re: Open Software License v2.1
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.
> 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? If you are the
patent holder, you would not have a copyright license on the software
that infringes your patent. If you are anyone else, you would not
have a patent license on the software. It would not be legal for
anyone to distribute (or use, except perhaps for the patent holder)
the software after a successful patent claim -- unless the patent
holder granted a free license.
Before Debian considers software free, we require proper licenses for
actively enforced patents; any claim of infringement would make the
software non-DFSG, even before a lawsuit is resolved.
Michael Poole
Reply to: