Re: OSD && DFSG convergence
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> John Goerzen writes:
> > In a nutshell, you are handing over rights to all your patents to
> > Apple if you use the software, but the license is quite explicit
> > that Apple is not handing over rights to all their patents in
> > exchange.
> I don't think it's the best defense against patents, but it's *a*
> defense that helps the community. A better defense is that taken by
> the OSL and AFL: if you sue any developer claiming that the software
> violates one of your patents, you lose the right to use ALL software
> licensed under the OSL, AFL, and any other license with a similar
I don't think this makes sense either. If you are, say, GE and you have
activities ranging from software development to freight locomotive
manufacturing, surely you are not asserting that it is good to force them to
choose between defending their locomotive manufacturing patent or using a
given set of software?
> > Further, a case could be made that it violates clase 5 ("No discrimination
> > against persons or groups") because it discriminates against people whom
> > choose to file legal cases against Apple.
> Sorry, but that's the Constitution's commerce clause all over again.
> Once you start using that clause that way, the DFSG may as well say
I don't follow, can you explain?
> > The Real license not only has that restriction, but talks at length
> > about R&D use only, etc, etc. It fails that clause in many ways.
> Take out the R&D and personal use grants. Does it still comply with
> the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to
> make the software DFSG-nonfree?
Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups
get different levels of freedom -- then it is not DFSG-free.
I think this is a Good Thing, too. I should be able to do one thing with
software if I do it in my spare time and another if I do it with my small