Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> However, if he distributed under a non-patent-defense license, it would
> *still* be non-free. So I'm not clear on how the so-called patent-defence
> clause makes any difference here.
It wouldn't be:
> Right.... but if the patent-defence clause is absent, then either:
> (1) GIFEnc is still free, because GIFCorp's patents will be defeated
> (In which case what's the need for the countersuit?)
>
> Or (2) GIFEnc isn't free
We're back at "do held patents make software non-free?" issue again: we
don't consider a work non-free simply because patents which can be
enforced against it exist, unless they're actually being enforced.
This fact does make the issue murky and much harder to figure out.
> So what difference does the patent-defence clause make?
It's essentially applying the "don't allege patent violation for use
of this software" part of the anti-patent clause to the copyright
holder, as well, by a different means (a license grant).
It's usually much cheaper, by my understanding, to countersue and settle
a patent suit than to defend against the patent in court--even if you
know you'll win because the patent is bogus.
I don't think it's free to require that others give up their ability to
countersue (eg. to take the above course of action) unless you guarantee
that you won't make it necessary--this is true even if you don't hold
any relevant patents, or if your patents wouldn't actually stand up in
court.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: