Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in
> a position of strength if software patents are involved.
I don't think I agree. At least, not yet.
In reading over this license, I see a number of clauses designed to
nullify the effect of patent litigation on the freeness of the software.
I see nothing which would make patent claims valid which would not
otherwise be valid.
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up nullifying
the patent in question. [If the courts uphold the patent, that's a
different problem, but one outside our scope -- if the result of some
patent litigation makes us have to treat some previous free software as
non-free or non-distributable, that would be a problem, but as a general
rule, patent issues are far too complex take pre-emptive action on.]
>From my point of view, it looks like this license was written properly.
Have I overlooked something?