Re: IBM Public License (again)
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> > under the IBM Public License (IPL).
> Normally, you should include the licence text.
> > Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
> > archives about it. The findings were confusing:
> > - There are many discussions (e.g. , ) about the patent
> > clause (§7, paragraph 2) but no consensus on whether it is non-free or not.
> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
> software. Regardless of what I think about software patents (I hate
> them), why should use of this software affect independent software I
> may release? We don't allow licences that try to force disclosure,
> why should we allow ones that try to force accepting patent
> infringment by IBM?
> It's a bit tricky to map this exactly onto the DFSG, but it seems a
> "I can't believe this is free software" candidate to me.
It only terminates a patent license, not a copyright license. That
just makes the license effectively mute about patents (which is true
of most licenses we look at). Patents were also discussed for an
Intel license .