Re: Please Review: Official IBM Public License

[wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)]

Kragen Sitaker:
> I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
> working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
> well-known license.  For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
> to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
> versions will get sued in the following case:
> 
> IBM releases OpenDX.
> Party A adds features they own patents on to OpenDX, releasing OpenDX'.
> Party B adds more features to OpenDX', doesn't touch party A's code or
> add more code that infringes Party A's patents, and releases OpenDX''.

Agree - every vendor is responsible for getting proper licenses
for the software they distibute.

> So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed
> under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in
> DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed
> (by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of the DFSG.  Worse, IBM could
> obtain the patent five or six years after people begin using the
> software; it seems to me that this puts people in the same danger of
> termination that the old Jikes license did, although to a lesser degree.

Agree - but this (something becoming subject to licensing) can
already happen with any piece of software.

Thanks for the input.

	Wietse