Re: Open Software License v2.1
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:
<snip>
>> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
>> I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
>> since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
>> can understand the objection to terminating the license over unrelated
>> lawsuits, but not the objection to termination when you actually sue
>> over the software in question. The alternative would be that *no one
>> except you* would have rights to the software, which means you have now
>> essentially made it your own proprietary software.
> No, you did that when you invented it
Stop right there. You didn't invent the software I wrote, regardless of
what the overloaded US Patent Office might think.
> and filed for a patent.
Some companies file "defensively" on the "everyone else has bogus garbage
patents, we need some too" principle.
> It's
> *already* your own proprietary software, and you're going to the
> courts to get that enforced.
But what about my copyright? I wrote the software. I am happy to license
it freely. I am *not* happy to make it into your proprietary software. If
your patent is really valid, write your own software.
> Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
> software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
> claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> all right to the original work and any derivative. Alice and Bob each
> use each other's software extensively, though they don't actually like
> each other much at all.
>
> Now Charlie comes along and derives a new work from Alice's and Bob's
> software. He violates the copyleft. They'd each like to sue him for
> copyright infringement, but if either one sues to defend his property
> rights, he loses his rights to the other's software. Is this free?
Actually, this is *not* analagous to the case at hand.
The clause we are discussing only applies if you allege that the *Original
Work* consitutes patent infringment.
Delete the "or any derivative" phrase from your example, and you see that
neither one loses the rights to the other's software. (On the other hand,
if Bob claims that Alice's software contains work stolen from Bob, then Bob
*does* lose the right to use Alice's software. And Charlie's. Is that
free?)
> I don't think it is, though I'm not so sure of myself to think that
> reasonable people can't disagree.
>
> But the patent case seems very similar: A and B each develop some
> software and distribute it under a copyleft with an attached patent
> license with a termination clause for any suit against the licensor or
> any licensee claiming patent infringement in the associated code.
> They each use the other's software and patented techniques.
>
> C then distributes an illicit derived work, in such a way that he does
> not violate the copyright license but does violate the patent
> license. Neither A nor B can sue him without losing their rights to
> the other's software. So if the copyright version is non-free, this
> is non-free, right?
But that's not the case we're looking at....
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: