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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:

MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]

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 [1].

This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in a position of strength if software patents are involved.

So the IBM Public License patent licence is some kind of self-contaminating. Is that as non-free as a self-contaminating copyright licence? Does self-contamination count as contaminating other licences by imposing restrictions on them that aren't in their licences?

Are there patents on the covered work? I guess that is the determining factor, as otherwise the patent licence seems irrelevant. Why include it if there are no patents, though?

The Intel drivers licence appears to be a different question.

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing

Reply to: