Re: The license
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:54:30 -0800 (PST), "Robert Levin" <levin@openprojects.net> said:
Robert> On 14 Dec 1998, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> "Robert Levin" <levin@openprojects.net> writes:
>>
>> In the event an intellectual property claim is made or appears
>> likely to be made with respect to the Software, you agree to
>> permit IBM to enable you to continue to use the Software, or to
>> modify it, or replace it with software that is at least
>> functionally equivalent. If IBM determines that none of these
>> alternatives is reasonably available, you agree, at IBM's request,
>> upon notice to you, to discontinue further distribution of the
>> Software and to delete or destroy all copies of the Software you
>> possess. This is IBM's entire obligation to you regarding any
>> claim of infringement.
>>
>> I take it that this is the paragraph that is causing contention?
>> I don't see any other problems with the license. I'm not sure
>> exactly where this paragraph falls under the DFSG.
Robert> This is the source of the problem areas I saw. It allows IBM
Robert> to decide whether the end user can continue to use the
Robert> software in the event of a potential IP claim. As I read it
I don't see a problem with this section. IBM just explicitly says
what is implied by other authors.
Say I write a program Y that does process X and release it GPL. I
find later (after many people download Y that X is patented by company
Z. Despite Y being GPLed all those people have to stop using it or
pay company Z some money. The license doesn't mean didly when there
are IP claims.
The clause is even nicer than that. It says that IBM will try before
telling you sto stop using is to rectify the situation in some other
way.
So, in my mind all IBM has done is state explicitly what all other
licenses basically include implicitly.
Dres
--
@James LewisMoss <dres@ioa.com> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
Reply to: