Re: Open Software License v2.1

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Patrick Herzig <patrick54@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> 
>> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
>> license in question, but terminates on any lawsuit over physical
>> property.  So if you're using my software which is written under this
>> license, and you sue to get me out of your house or to give back your
>> car, you lose the rights to the software.
>
> One difference between this and the (narrow) patent clause is that by
> asserting patent rights to a software someone can prohibit
> distribution of this software under the GPL (GPL #7). Unlike the
> property example you gave there is a direct connection. That said, I
> have no opinion (yet) if this makes such a clause non-free or not.

If I assert property rights to the physical matter of the copy, then I
can prevent distribution under the GPL too -- you can't copy it if you
can't get to the copy.

The GPL2's patent clause is, I think, exactly the right balance of
freedoms regarding patents: nothing about lawsuits, just a requirement
that you grant all the rights you have, and if you can't grant all
those rights than you may not distribute at all..

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu