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

patent aspects, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

I am glad that Mahesh has replied. I have noticed use of the debian-legal MPL discussion to justify condemnation of the term "free software" in messages to fsug-kochi-discuss. As some should already know, the Open Source Initiative group famously claim "no position" on patents. As such, did they really look at patent-related clauses in the MPL before approving it?

Given that, I really welcome an "opensource" interest in patent clauses. I don't think that the MPL granting a non-free patent licence for non-existant patents is a severe problem, though.

On 2004-06-23 20:11:51 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@vsnl.net> wrote:

MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent  owners' policies  may  change. Patents  are patents,  actively
enforced or  not.

I did not write "actively enforced".

If the  license does not  grant a patent  license in
respect  of the  software released,  people can  very easily  sneak in
patent time bombs into the codebase.

I am aware of the dangers of patents for some debian users.

No consensus was reached on the Nokia Open Source L as far as I can
The patent clauses for MPL and Nokia license are identical. [...]

The probabilities of Nokia and Mozilla holding patents are different, aren't they?

Approving licenses  simply because the  non DFSG freeness  arises from
patents which are not enforced is a bad precedent.

Rest assured, I do not recommend approving this licence. I don't see why we cannot say "some works under this are free and some are non-free". I think that each MPL-covered work needs inspection.

What if Nokia releases something under the MPL?

It depends if they have patented any of it.

I hope this reply is interesting,
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing

Reply to: