Re: IBM Public License (again)
Josh Triplett <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
> this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
> wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
Absolutely. I don't see why I should lose my right to distribute the
software just because I sue one of the authors -- after all, I might
be in the right!
> Finally, I think the GPL would have the same effect with respect to
> software patents. If you use a software patent to sue about a piece of
> GPLed software, you are attempting to take away the right to
> use/copy/modify/distribute that software under the conditions of the
> GPL. Since this would mean only people who have a patent license from
> you can use/copy/modify/distribute the software, you cannot satisfy the
> terms of the GPL (which require you to grant that right to everyone who
> has a copy), so you lose the right to distribute the software under GPL
> clause 7.
Not necessarily. There are some lawsuits that might have this
problem, but others don't -- though some of them assume convoluted
patent licenses in the first place.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com