Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer
> >> using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he
> >> holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his
> >> rights to do anything with the code?
> >
> > Why should we license any copyrights or patents to him when he's not
> > willing to reciprocate? It's his right to charge us cash for using his
> > patent, but then it's our right to then demand he pay us for using our
> > copyrighted and patented intellectual property.
>
> Well, no reason, really. The same no reason that you license your
> copyrights to those who aren't willing to reciprocate. You have every
> right to make that demand -- but then what you're doing isn't Free
> Software, just a very generous shared source program.
>
> It's still a cool thing, it's just not Debian's cool thing.
GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the
tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any
different?
Rob
--
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
Reply to: