Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:15:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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.
That may make it a more principled form of "protection", but in terms of
effectiveness, I doubt this type of clause will be very effective for
most projects. I can only think of two cases where this may be highly
effective. One is very major projects--I suspect even Microsoft would
hesistate before permanently losing their license to the Linux kernel.
The other is if major pieces of code, under the license, are in widespread
use, such that claiming that piece of code is infringing causes you to
lose your license to that piece of code in all its copies, so that in
order to use any program it's embedded in, you'd have to rewrite that
section of code.
For most projects, though, the threat of losing the license doesn't have
very strong teeth. I'd guess that if Fraunhofer was willing to put down
the cash to enforce some patents against LAME, the threat of losing their
license to it wouldn't slow them down very much.
(That's not to say this concept is worthless--if it can be done in a free
fashion, then let's use what levers we've got.)
> 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
In an environment where the only strong defense against patents is patents,
I don't think this is fair. Condemn the patent system and companies that
abuse it, but saying that holding defensive patents is not "right" isn't
reasonable when it's the only safe course of action.
> 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.
We generally agree, I think, that advertising clauses ("say these magic
words if you mention this in advertising") in a non-EULA copyright license
are unenforcable, as is "you may not post negative reviews of this software"
and use restrictions ("may not be used to create bombs").
Do they suddenly become enforcable if phrased as "if you don't say these
magic words if you mention this in advertising, this license is terminated"?
Why?
(Not that unenforcable restrictions make a license non-free, of course--I
think that, for purposes of the DFSG, they should be evaluated as if they
were enforcable. As many have pointed out, they're usually a hint that
a restriction is non-free, but that's all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: