MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-09-15 04:14:40 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: >> Does that really matter, if the condition for termination is acceptable? >> If the patent license is terminated, the only reason to care whether >> the copyright license terminates as well is if you intend to ignore the >> lack of a patent license. (Granted, Debian tends to do that in many >> cases. :) ) > > I think so. There are at least two interesting cases which terminating > copyright licence on patent action hurts free software users. > > The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the > software. Hopefully this will be the most common case, as free software > developers reject software patents. If only the patent licence > terminates, including the software in a counter-claim defending some > patent accusation does not remove your freedom to use the software. Why > should a licensor be allowed to use copyright to their advantage when > attacking others with patents? Of course, if your counter-claim is > successful, I suspect you must grant a RF patent licence for the > software to remain free. In the world of proprietary software, the copyright holders of that software often have large numbers of software patents with which to defend themselves. Free Software developers, as you said, do not normally have software patents. I believe the entire point of these license clauses is to provide a way for Free Software developers to have the equivalent protections, using something they *do* have: the copyrights on their Free Software products. This is actually an even better form of "protection", because it allows Free Software developers to reject the idea of software patents by not holding any, while still defending themselves from those of others. > The second is when your use of the software only occurs in a > jurisdiction which does not have software patents. A similar argument > applies. Then how would you be able to sue someone over your software patents, if you hold none? Unless you are suggesting that you could do business in one jurisdiction while holding patents in another that you do not do business in; that kind of "jurisdiction shopping" seems highly unethical. >> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*, > > Of course, but I see no reason to unnecessarily harm free software > developers who wish to use software patents to defend software patent > accusations. Free Software developer or not, I see no reason to support the holders of software patents by allowing them to use those patents against other Free Software developers. I acknowledge that the only existing method for large corporations to defend themselves against software patents is to hold many themselves; that does not make it right to hold software patents, and it does not help the far greater number of developers who cannot use this tactic because they cannot afford to apply for patents on everything they do. > It's not a tactic I like, but it seems valid. Further, some > have claimed that copyright-based enforcement of patents may be a type > of "misuse" so these "all terminates" licence terms are useless anyway, > but I'm not sure about that. I strongly disagree with that; if one holds the copyright to a work, one can license it in any given manner they please, by simply allowing the rights granted under copyright to only those who fulfill the requirements of the license. > I consider myself fortunate that my work is outside the reach of > software patents... so far. Or far more likely, that you violate many of them, but you are not high-profile enough to sue. :) (Or that suing you or another Free Software developer would be bad PR.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature