Re: Open Software License v2.1
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
>> >
>> > Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
>> > of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for free software.
>>
>> But the problem is that that software isn't free to begin with -- it
>> could be, if the patent owner issued a free license, but it isn't
>> without the court case either. Somebody else owns the monopoly on
>> that invention.
>
> But, as we all know, this is the case with all software, due to the vast
> numbers of software patents. If we take the mere existance of a patent to
> mean that the software isn't free, then there is probably no free software.
I think you're taking this to a further extreme than necessary, and in
so doing passing straight through the truth out on to the other side.
That is, you're right about the situation you describe, but it's not the
interesting situation. The interesting way to look at this is that
most software patents are invalid, and would trivially be thrown out
by a court. But not all -- there are some patents which describe a
real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is no more
free than a license which compels them to surrender any other recourse
to the courts.
>> >> It is unarguably superior that source should always be available for a
>> >> free software project. You cannot say the same for prohibiting
>> >> lawsuits.
>> >
>> > It is not unarguably the case that source requirements are always
>> > beneficial to free software. I could easily give an example where
>> > they were detrimental, and the development of a free software project
>> > was furthered by dropping them. (I'm not interested in debating whether
>> > this was actually so or not; it was, and I'll leave it at that for the
>> > sake of avoiding pointless tangents.)
>>
>> You're claiming an existence proof but failing to show the example. I
>> don't believe you -- nothing personal, but how can that be allowed as
>> a successful argument? I suspect you're looking at a case where you
>> *bought* effort towards a software project by permitting
>> source-disclosure requirements to be cancelled.
>
> I didn't provide the example because I believed the fact that they exist
> is self-evident, and providing unnecessary detail is something I was hoping
> to not spend my (finite) time on.
>
> I'm a programmer for StepMania[1], and for In The Groove[2], a commercial
> project based on it. Source requirements would have rendered the ITG project
> unfeasible, for various, typical marketplace reasons. If the ITG project
> didn't exist, I wouldn't be working on StepMania very much today[3]; the
> fact that my ITG work and SM work overlap is what allows it. (Almost all
> of my work for ITG is merged into SM.)
Hey, that's a neat project. Thanks!
But it still seems like you bought the freedom for some of this code
by giving up the copyleft. You got more code into StepMania by
sacrificing freedom for those who receive In The Groove. That helped
there be more software, but it certainly didn't help there be more
freedom.
It may have helped there be more free software, but I sure can't say
that for sure.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: