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

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report



Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.)
> 
> But...
> 
>>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?

We do not wish for our user's freedoms to be revokable, and we do not
accept licenses that allow anyone to do so.  However, *no matter what
the Free Software license says*, a third-party patent holder can always
sweep in and use their patents to prevent distribution.  This is an
inherent problem with software patents, not specific to the software in
question.  This does *not* mean that we should allow software licenses
that can be explicitly revoked for no reason, just because patents are
so fundamentaly wrong.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: