Re: Open Software License v2.1
> > GPL 7 isn't relevant here. GPL 7 is for cases where someone else holds
> > the patent. [Note the uses of the phrase "imposed on you" and the phrase
> > "do not excuse you".]
> > Try GPL 5 and 6, instead.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:39:38AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Right. So I set up a little corporation whose purpose is to hold the
> patents, and I deal in the copyrights. Now we're back in GPL 7 land.
Only if you've given up control of the corporation, to the degree you
have no influence over the corporation.
Even there, if it can be shown that you set up the corporation for the
purpose of making this happen, it's not likely that any superficial or
temporary lack of control would be relevant.
That said, if this tactic worked for the GPL, it would work just as
well for the OSL -- for all I know, your tactic might even work better
in the context of the OSL. Oh, look, it's not me that's lost rights
to distribute your program that I'm claiming is illegal -- it's this
corporation that owns my patents that's suing you.
> >> I'm sure I only have to grant a license to that patent to all parties
> >> who receive a copy of the work.
> > You can't restrict that grant to only those parties -- they must be able
> > to further distribute the program without any further restrictions.
> Why must they be able to do that? I can distribute in compliance with
> GPL 6, and then they get stopped by GPL 7 through no fault of mine.
It's not "through no fault of yours" if it's your restriction that causes
them to get stopped by GPL 7.
And, if it's not your restriction that causes them to get stopped by GPL
section 7, how could you possibly sue the copyright holder for patent
violations if the license were osl-2.1 instead of the gpl?
> >> > The scenario you seem to propose looks to me like this:
> >> First, B files for a patent and publishes an invention. For the sake
> >> of argument, say it's something legitimately innovative.
> > 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.
Where, specifically, do you disagree? [Let's take it for granted that
if you disagree with an antecedent that you feel that the consequent
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents
> >> > this scenario is not good, and that the reason it's
> >> > not good is that it prevents this scenario.
> >> It might be good. It isn't free. If it is free,
> >> why isn't the following free:
> >> : A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that
> >> : the software is on his hard drive, and sues A for
> >> : that drive. B wins, and now only B can distribute
> >> : the software -- A can't [and no one else can]
> >> : without getting a license from B.
> > This scenario of yours has nothing to do with the freeness of the
> > license.
> It's just your patent scenario from above, rephrased to deal with
> physical property.
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.