Re: Open Software License v2.1

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
>> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
>
> That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing
> about schrodinger's cat.
>
> If you win the lawsuit, then you're right, it's not a free license, and no
> one should be distributing the software because it's illegal software.
> [Though it might be possible to distribute the software under some
> proprietary license if the patent holder(s) and the copyright holder(s)
> cooperate.]

And if I don't have a license to those copyrights after that lawsuit,
then I never had a free license in the first place.

> If you don't win the lawsuit, then the suit was bogus, and you've
> inflicted bogus costs on me.  I don't see any argument that the license
> is not free in this case.

That's certainly true.  But it should be left to the courts and
evolving intellectual capital law.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu