Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
> > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you
> > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like).
> >
> > If so, then the GPL is, too--the copyright holder "doesn't like" you
> > distributing binaries without source. Stop making ludicrous comparisons.
>
> No, that's entirely different. The MS EULA allows them to crush
> anything that they don't like. The GPL does no such thing.
Nor does "don't enforce patents against this software", so I'm not sure
what you're arguing here.
> > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright
> > > holder.
> >
> > ... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
> > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
> > infringes a patent.
> >
> > Please not "or any licensee". This clause is not giving the licensee
> > special treatment.
>
> Right, it's giving the copyright holder special treatment. That's my point.
Thinko due to neighboring words; s/licensee/licensor/. (I suppose I
should just use "copyright holder" and "user".) It's not giving the
copyright holder special treatment at all; it very explicitly and
deliberately treats the copyright holder and users equally.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: