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

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:

    MJ> On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka <free@agnula.org>
    MJ> wrote:
    >> Please could you answer to his question?

    MJ> I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see
    MJ> it in the forwarded email.

    MJ> For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL
    MJ> 2.0 is not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright
    MJ> permission for any software patent action, including ones
    MJ> unrelated to the covered software. The Licensor is also free
    MJ> to initiate patent actions against the Licensee and this seems
    MJ> to hinder the Licensee's defence. I see this as a type of bad
    MJ> termination clause, which wouldn't be tolerated for copyrights
    MJ> alone.

I don't think this claim follows from the text of the DFSG and so I
think it is open to interpretation.

In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions.  So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
such licenses while not violating the text of the DFSG.

However, I don't really want to get into that debate now.  The OSL 2.0
seems clearly non-free as discussed later in the thread.  Even if it
is free, software with a clickwrap provision seems inappropriate to
place in Debian.

I'm sending this message as a standing offer to have the debate over
where to draw the line about patent termination clauses if the outcome
of that debate actually matters.  I contend in this case that the
outcome does not matter so the debate is not worth the resources it
would consume.

Reply to: