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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 11:03:41 +0100 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:

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?

The wording is a little vague: a "patent applicable to software" could possibly cover some of a licensor's hardware activities which the licensee would then be unable to pursue?

Why should free software producers allow IBM these extra unfair weapons in addition to the millions that they already hold?

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.

What effect does existance of other licensees for a disputed patent have?

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

Reply to: