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

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

Josh Triplet wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>> other acceptable? The user is equally screwed either way.
>A termination clause grants the author unilateral rights to terminate a
>user's freedoms.  The freedoms granted by a Free Software license must
>not be revokable without cause, or those freedoms are false.
>(Termination if the user violates the license is fine, as long as it
>does not affect those downstream from that user.)


>Software patents screw everyone. :)  The fact that software patents
>allow control of software by a third-party is an inherent flaw in
>software patents, and not something that any license on that software
>can fix.  The best a license can do is require that *no one* distribute
>the software unless they can grant all the same freedoms; otherwise, a
>patent holder could prevent everyone from distributing the software
>*unless they have a patent license*, which essentially allows them to
>make the software proprietary.

...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time anyway? What practical benefit does this offer them?

Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: