Re: Open Software License v2.1
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:38:51AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
> > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you
> > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like).
> >
> > This is not true, and it does not approximate anything that is true.
>
> False. Go and read the MS EULA.
You write as if there were only one.
> > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright
> > > holder.
> >
> > Under this line of argument, the GPL is non-free because it gives the
> > copyright holder a promise that the licensee will redistribute the
> > work (in original or modified form) in source code to anyone the
> > licensee gives a copy to.
>
> Also wrong, despite attempts at word games. The GPL gives all
> licensees access to the source, and nothing to the copyright holder
> (unless they coincidentally happen to be a licensee of a modified
> version). This is a necessary condition for it to be free; if it
> actually gave access to the source to the copyright holder then it
> would not be free. An example of a non-free license along these lines
> is the old NPL.
You have yet to establish why this argument applies to the kind of
patent lawsuit clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
all licensees equally.
Michael Poole
Reply to: