Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 02:29, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> If it did that, I don't think there'd be any real argument. Sadly, it
> terminates the copyright license as well. If it merely terminated the
> patent license I don't think we'd have any trouble with it. It would
> also strengthen your legal case (if the copyright termination would make
> any difference to them, then they must be using the software. If they no
> longer have a patent license to do so, you can nail them for rather more
> breaches than you previously could) if somebody does sue you over
> patents.
I've never personally been involved in patent litigation, but I doubt
it's ever that clean. Once in court, both sides will want/need every
tool at their disposal, since every aspect of the opponents case will be
under attack. Our case would /not/ be stronger by freely ceding the
copyright aspects of our intellectual property to the opponent.
> In its current form, I think there'd be few people who would accept the
> RPSL as DFSG-free. If you terminated patent grants rather than the
> copyright license, I think there'd be a sizable proportion of developers
> who would accept it as DFSG-free.
Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is
the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them?
Rob
--
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
Reply to: