Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | 12. Termination.
> | 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.
> which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
> give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
> controls. This would be fair with us if it was restricted to patens
> related to the "Covered Code", (and with some disagreement perhaps
> even if restricted to software patents) but no such restriction is in
> the language quoted. It even covers plain old
> honest-to-your-favorite-deity patents on mechanical or chemical
FYI, the IBM Common Public License , which has been approved for
Debian, has a similar clause which reads:
If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with
respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim
or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by
that Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall
terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, If
Recipient institutes patent litigation against any entity (including
a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the
Program itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other
software or hardware) infringes such Recipient's patent(s), then
such Recipient's rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate
as of the date such litigation is filed.
It restricts it only to software licenses, but otherwise is very
similar. I think the real problem with the APSL is the other points
you mentioned. I thought the APSL had a click-wrap as well, but I
guess they got rid of it.