Re: IBM Public License (again)
@ 14/05/2004 07:03 : wrote Raul Miller :
You are ignoring the _on_ _other_ _software_ part: "the IBM patent
license terminates if you don't comply with conditions ON OTHER
SOFTWARE". This is undoubtely contamination, and is prohibited by the DFSG#9
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
after five years.
You lost me for this one. Who is suing IBM over patent license? (IMHO
the person would have to be certifiably insane to do that, but...)
Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for
Legalistic licensors covering all their bases, or companies that
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
is presumed guilty until proven innocent.