Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Hi Matthew,
Yes, it probably was me you spoke to at GUADEC, though there were so
many new faces, I have to admit to losing track of everyone I met.
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent infringment.
Note that this isn't a license to the licensee's patents. This just
basically says that we can revoke our patent grants if the licensee
chooses to take legal action against us.
It's hard to be more specific than that. I could envision us narrowing
the scope to "software patents" or something along those lines, but
beyond that, it's very difficult to be more narrow without unilaterally
disarming ourselves in a defensive patent stand.
Rob
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 13:17, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> wrote:
>
> > I would love to work with the Debian project on making sure RPSL is
> > Debian-free. However, it makes it really difficult to engage the
> > RealNetworks Legal department when there's a lot of discussion about
> > personal tastes, but no mapping back to DFSG clauses. That just makes
> > everyone here believe that there will be an endless stream of
> > manufactured excuses as to why future versions of the RPSL will also not
> > be considered Debian-free.
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I think I spoke to you at GUADEC, though I had enough of a headache the
> next morning that I could easily be mistaken.
>
> As others have pointed out, the RPSL requires widespread provision of
> source even if you're not distributing binaries to the world. I don't
> think that's a problem. Others disagree. It's certainly not clearly tied
> to the DFSG except in slightly tortuous ways.
>
> What is possibly more of a problem is the patent termination stuff. You
> could argue that it discriminates against a field of endeavour (ie,
> people who have created patents that Real happen to be in violation of)
> - I think this is less tenuous than making the same claim for the
> dissident test (which isn't actually the license discriminating against
> people, it's their own government). Effectively, the license as it
> stands allows Real to make use of other people's intellectual property
> without their consent if the patent holder's business model (or
> whatever) happens to depend on using the Helix code.
>
> Obviously Real want to be able to protect themselves against patent
> actions. I'm not convinced that doing so in the way the RPSL does is the
> best way of doing so. If we set aside the desert island/dissident stuff,
> would you be willing to discuss what Real want to achieve by the patent
> clauses so we can try to find some sort of acceptable terms?
>
> New licenses seem very keen on providing patent termination clauses.
> It's really a discussion that we have to have at some point, especially
> since the DFSG as it currently stands really doesn't cover the area too
> well.
--
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
Reply to: