Hello world,
What do we think of licenses that say things like:
] 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder
] will terminate:
...
] (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
] during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
] infringement against Apple.
-- The Apple Public Source License,
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
and
] 8. TERMINATION.
] 8.2. If You initiate patent infringement litigation against
] Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or
] Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as
] "Participant") alleging that:
]
] (a) such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly
] infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted [...]
] to You [... will] terminate [...unless...] You either: (i)
] [pay them], or (ii) [withdraw your claim]. [...]
]
] (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such
] Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly
] infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such
] Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked effective
] as of the date You first made, used, sold, distributed, or had
] made, Modifications made by that Participant.
-- the Netscape Public License, 1.0M (draft)
http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0M.html
Section (8.2 a) seems plausibly reasonable to me: if you sue someone
for writing software that infringes on their patent, you don't get to
use that software.
Section (12.1 c) in the Apple license, and (8.2 b) in the Netscape
license just seem nasty, though. As someone said in the APSL thread,
if you patent a method and make it available to anyone for use in free
software, then Apple or Netscape try to abuse that, if you sue them,
you can't use Mozilla or Darwin anymore.
The reason I ask, is because the termination clause in the draft DFSG-v2
doesn't allow *any* of these restrictions, under ``You can't reserve
the right to terminate the license at some later point in time''.
The other thing is, has anyone pointed out that Mozilla is going non-free
according to us? Or am I misreading something in the license above?
(The draft DFSG doesn't say anything about patents per se, though, so
clauses to the effect of "You can use our patents in this product, but
not in other ones you might happen to right" aren't really considered,
so defensive actions against patent suits are still possible, just not
in the ways Apple and Netscape seem to want above)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Attachment:
pgpy07XtZaVVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature