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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> "We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for 
> non-compliance" Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the 
> IBM patent licence terminates if you don't comply with conditions on 
> other software. Why is that not contaminating?

That's an example of terminating for non-compliance.  An example of
termination without non-compliance would be where a license is terminated
after five years.

Branden's statement isn't particularly restrictive.

> I don't think that accepting non-free patent licenses is a useful way 
> to defend free software.

Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for
free software?

> > Legalistic licensors covering all their bases, or companies that hold 
> > so many patents that it would be difficult to search them all to 
> > determine what to license.
> It seems unfair to put the burden of discovering what has been 
> licensed on the distributors and users. Does anyone know how a court 
> would handle this?

In the U.S., it's roughly the case that the defendant in patent litigation
is presumed guilty until proven innocent.


Reply to: