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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.

> 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?

In my case it is a rather trivial Perl module (I18N::AcceptLanguage), to
write it was probably less time consuming than this discussion. Perhaps
I could ask the author why he uses such a complicated license for such
a trvial piece of software.

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply to: