Re: Open Software License v2.1
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
>> > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
>> > claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
>
>> The clause we are discussing only applies if you allege that the
>> *Original Work* consitutes patent infringment.
>
> I don't think this is well-defined or well-understood just yet.
>
> Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work
> and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding.
>
> Joe derives XEmacs from that work. This inherits, among many other
> things, GIF decoding.
>
> Bill sues Joe, claiming that XEmacs infringes his GIF patent.
>
> Does and should Bill lose his license to Emacs, in addition to XEmacs?
> I think the answer to both is yes.
>
> This is analogous to what happens if you violate the GPL and lose your
> license to a forked project: you lose your license to the original
> project, too, since you violated that as well. (Or at least, that's
> what I think happens.) Similarly, if you violate the original work,
> you can no longer use any forks, either. If these things didn't happen,
> the GPL would be a lot weaker, and probably have loopholes.
>
> (It might be that your "license" to the code shared in both projects
> is one and the same, but I don't know.)
Yes, it is. Under the system used for nearly all free software licenses,
the "license" to the code shared in both projects is a single license
direct to you from Bob (the copyright holder).
When you receive Linux, you receive a gobsmacking pile of individual
licenses, one from each copyright holder.
There are certain licenses which use sublicensing instead (mostly those
drafted in England) and they would have different rules.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: