Re: Please Review: Official IBM Public License
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
[commenting my reasons why I think the patent clauses in IBM's license
does not cause it to fail the DFSG].
> On the other hand, when an author has asked us not to distribute some
> piece of software, we've not distributed it. This is basic politeness
> if nothing else (and, aside from the KDE case and a time when some
> alpha software began to achieve wide use without any official notice,
> it's been a fairly noncontroversial issue).
This is not meant as an argument that IPL is not DFSG-compiant, is it?
If it is, I fail to see the point.
> I think that this would also apply if the author holds a patent license
> that the author won't grant us rights to
Of course. That is not even politeness, it's the law. But in the case
of postfix, no such concrete case has been mentioned on the list. The
license simply allows *derived* works to use narrowly licensed patents.
Which is no worse than a BSD license or public-domain grants.