*To*: debian-legal@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]*From*: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>*Date*: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:58:35 +0000*Message-id*: <[🔎] 20011205135835.GH24717@rano.org>*In-reply-to*: <[🔎] yah3d2pvly7.fsf@ivalde.diku.dk> <[🔎] yahr8qaixtv.fsf@gefion.diku.dk>*References*: <[🔎] 20011204.104338.74754093.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <[🔎] yahr8qaixtv.fsf@gefion.diku.dk> <[🔎] 20011204.130420.78708166.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <[🔎] yahbshdvoz4.fsf@ivalde.diku.dk> <[🔎] 20011205125701.GG24717@rano.org> <[🔎] yah3d2pvly7.fsf@ivalde.diku.dk> <[🔎] 20011204112642.A22502@Tonelli.sns.it> <[🔎] yahk7w3j7vk.fsf@gefion.diku.dk> <[🔎] 20011204.104338.74754093.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <[🔎] yahr8qaixtv.fsf@gefion.diku.dk>

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>: > There's at least two important differences: > > 1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede > that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free > software than traditional patents. > > 2) The only thing that terminates here is patent licences - which is > separate from the copyright license spoken about by the DFSG. Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>: > > But the IBM licence has been accepted as free, and it seems to be > > rather similar. > > I have pointed out the important differences. You did indeed list two differences, but did you provide a convincing argument that those differences should be decisive? By the way, it's also interesting to compare with the Mozilla Public Licence, which seems to terminate all rights if you claim that a contributor's code infringes a patent, and just the patent rights if you sue a contributor for any other patent infringement. So, it doesn't only talk about software patents (your first point) and it doesn't just terminate patent licences (your second point). Of course, the Mozilla Public Licence doesn't go as far as the RIACA licence, but where exactly do you want to draw the line, and why? My own current proposal is that DFSG 6 should not be interpreted to exlude licences in which the licensor includes terms which can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to protect the licensor. Edmund

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]***From:*Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>

**References**:**Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]***From:*Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>

**Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]***From:*Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>

*From:*Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>

*From:*Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>

*From:*Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>

*From:*Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>

**[Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]***From:*A Mennucc1 <debian@Tonelli.sns.it>

*From:*Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>

- Prev by Date:
- Next by Date:
- Previous by thread:
- Next by thread:
- Index(es):