Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
> > >> > lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
> > >> > costs.
> > >>
> > >> It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you not sue the licensor
> > >> doesn't impose any costs on you.
> > >
> > > This is fairly obviously wrong. It grants the licensor a carte blanche
> > > license to do anything they like
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > No, to infringe your bogus software patent.
>
> Which can trivially be twisted to smite any lawsuit you care to bring,
> thereby granting them a de facto carte blanche license to do anything
> they like. We've been over this already.
No, we havn't been over this at all. You keep making this claim, but
you consistently fail to defend it. Please explain how these anti-
patent clauses can be used to "smite" my lawsuit claiming that you
owe me $3000 in rent, or that your software infringes upon my copyright
because you removed my name from the code.
If one or both of these are beyond what you intended by "Prohibiting
lawsuits", "do anything they like" and "any lawsuit you care to bring",
you have an open invitation to be more specific and actually defend your
arguments instead of merely repeating assertions.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: