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

Re: IBM Public License (again)

MJ Ray wrote:

> On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
>>> cases
>>> above, terminate?
>> This software's license doesn't terminate.  The patent license from
>> all
>> of the software's contributors not to sue you over patents terminates.
> I already wrote I'm only considering the patent licence, so let's drop
> the wording defence. We agree that the patent licence terminates.
> Therefore, the patent licence is non-free.
>> A license that gives no indication about patents at all would give you
>> fewer rights than this license
> Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no
> patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then
> having no patent licence => non-free.
> Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in
> order to use their software has such patents?
Not when it's written that generally.

> If not, why don't they 
> declare that instead of licensing a nothing to us?
IBM has too damn many patents and probably didn't want to bother determining
which ones might apply to what software.  :-/

>> Given that our standard position on patents is to ignore them unless a
>> particular patent holder is threatening us with lawsuits, I see no
>> reason why we shouldn't apply the same policy here.
> Our standard position on patents is usually for the case where we have
> no patent licence and don't know that we require one. This is a case
> where we are being offered a non-free patent licence and a free
> copyright licence. Why aren't these two seperate licences? Then we
> would know whether we require a patent licence by whether it is
> offered, which would make it easier to spot software non-free for
> swpat lands ;-)


I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
"Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."

That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: