Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 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.
> I agree that software patents are extremely insidious and potentially
> very threatening to the development and use of Free Software.
> I do not believe that any conceivable defense is necessarily warranted,
> Moreover, I am not at all confident that the OSL 2.0 is a good vehicle
> via which to communicate our intolerance of software patents.
> However, I do agree that it's not necessary to fight this battle right
> now, as the OSL 2.0 is defective in other, less controversial, respects.
I think it's not controversial that the OSL "software patent" clause is
overbroad. Even if software patent retaliation clauses in general are
acceptable, termination clauses based on patents "applicable" -- but not
actually "applied" -- to software potentially discriminate against all
holders of legitimate patents. Everyone seems to agree about this, at
There are none so blind as those who will not see.