On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:41:01PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > 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. Licensor brings suit against you alleging massive patent infringement on your part. The chances of you successfully defending them all are slim. Your choices are effectively settlement, or patent counter-suit that kills your license. Corporations amass defensive patents to block precisely this scenario, and they use anti-patent clauses to defuse the defensive patents of their opponents. It lets them stand over you with a big club and dictate terms. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature