Re: Open Software License v2.1
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> 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.
> You seem to be describing the difference between a public domain work
> and a copyleft work, with the claim that copyleft software isn't free.
> Can you express your concept differently, in a way which doesn't include
> this kind of nonsense?
This isn't nonsense. A copyleft license unambiguously releases rights
for me to modify and distribute. I don't have to sacrifice *anything
at all* which I had otherwise. This copy-to-patentleft sort of
licence says I have to refrain from enforcing the patent rights which
I had independent of the work, or I don't get a copyright license.
That's no good.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org