[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Olga.Caprotti@risc.uni-linz.ac.at: Research Institute for Applications of Computer Algebra: Licenses]

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.


Reply to: