Matthew Garrett wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > >>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett >><mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> >>>Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes. >> >>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a >>patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are >>there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination? > > Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's > requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code. > I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for > users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license. It isn't any less of a practical problem. However, it is a less preventable problem. Debian can simply not accept revokable licenses, but Debian cannot in any way prevent claims by third-party patent holders. Arbitrary patent claims cannot be prevented, but that does not mean Debian should stop distributing all software. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature