[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: