Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:07:06 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20040531215413.GB14887@suffields.me.uk>
>> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > I would be quite comfortable allowing patent "retaliation"
>> > restrictions, but
>> > only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license
>> > rights must terminate only if the work is alleged to constitute patent
>> > infringement (no action based on unrelated causes), and they must
>> > terminate only for the person who alleged that it did (no harming third
>> > parties).
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I recommend the following:
> Phrase the proposed restriction in a way that is not specific to
> patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is
> it still an acceptable restriction?
The essence of what I would accept is this:
"If you claim, legally, that my work can't be distributed/used/modified
freely by people in general, then *you* can't distribute/use/modify my work
either". A "if you think this should happen to everyone else, it should
happen to you too" clause.
This prevents people from actually literally taking free software
proprietary (not just derivative works, but the originals) -- this could
otherwise be done using patents.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.