Re: Open Software License v2.1
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
> 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?
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
giving theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back
room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
>> 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.
Only if the patent holder remains the copyright holder.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: