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

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> > 
> > > Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
> > > 
> > > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> > > whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> > > any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
> > > contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions have to be
> > > considered like any other restriction (invert the sense of the
> > > conditional to get the restriction).
> > > 
> > > Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple
> > > license, is probably non-free. DFSG-free licenses give things to the
> > > licensee, not to the copyright holder. They are not a trade (although
> > > the grant of permissions does not have to be the most generous
> > > possible), even if their social behaviour resembles one.
> > > 
> > > (Corollary of these two: terminating a license for any reason other
> > > than non-compliance is probably non-free)
> > 
> > Other corollary: Claiming something is a "contract-like provision" is
> > a useful wedge to make something like the GPL a non-free license.
> That's a summary of an old discussion which apparently you didn't
> read. Redefining it arbitrary to something else will obviously
> generate an arbitrary result.

Then please stop arbitrarily defining "contract-like provision" to
what is convenient for you.  Others will have their own arbitrary
definitions that are useful to them.

I think you are extending the conclusion of that discussion beyond the
point where it is supportable; there are fairly clear differences
between "You must do X to get these rights" and "You lose these rights
if you do Y," especially when Y prevents others from exercising those
same rights.

By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you
attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work.

> > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is
> > > non-free.
> > 
> > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant.
> Congratulations, you missed the point.

I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it
productive to make an unsupported insult like that?

Michael Poole

Reply to: