[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:
> 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?



Reply to: