Re: Open Software License v2.1
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
> > military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
> > intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
> > to be.
>
> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly
> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute
> binaries without source? Neither prevents or restricts use, modification
> or distribution of modified works.
Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
infringement, your license is terminated.
The other says that if you sue claiming that the software infringes
your patent, your license is terminated.
The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the
author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the
software. I am not sure why some people think the latter is
objectionable, since it is similar in spirit and effect to the GPL's
termination case (which is when one tries to distribute or sublicense
the software in ways not permitted by the GPL).
Michael Poole
Reply to: