Re: IBM Public License (again)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> 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.

Hmm.  I guess I read license a little too quickly.  What is rather
amusing is that IBM has now lost all of its patent rights anyone else
may have given them, since they counter-sued SCO over some patent
rights.

This probably qualifies as a bug in the license even for IBM, and they
might be convinced to change the license.  Someone should talk to them.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu