Re: Open Software License v2.1

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Andrew Suffield wrote:

> Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
> contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions have to be 
> considered like any other restriction (invert the sense of the
> conditional to get the restriction).

In this case, however, I would make the case that by suing claiming that the
Work is infringing a patent, the person suing is not complying with the
spirit of the license.  The person suing is certainly attempting to claim
that the license is not really valid for anyone *else*, and if it's not
valid for anyone else, why should it be valid for the lawsuit initiator?

> Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple
> license, is probably non-free.
"Probably" is a key word here.  I understand your position though; it has
sense to it too.

I do think this sort of clause is unnecessary in a copyleft license with
explicit patent grants, like the OSL, because that already prevents the
"patent holder steals the work" scenario.

-- 
This space intentionally left blank.