Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:06:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I'm not sure it is, in this example. Well. It's important because
> this is all part of a crusade against software patents taken too far
> into a crusade against patents which happen to apply to software.
I understand what you're saying, but I just don't yet think this is a
"crusade taken too far".
> Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free
> software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade,
> not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions
> on the behavior of licensees of allegedly free software?
This seems obvious to me: these clauses are intended to protect users
and free software. If Debian is to reject them, it should be because
they're damaging to users or free software, by restricting freedoms that
we consider important.
I'm ready and willing to be convinced that there's some freedom being
restricted here that shouldn't be, but I havn't been pointed to it yet.
This is similar to the point of the "desert island" re-debate where
people were asking "what freedom does this protect?" The answer was
"freedom to make private modifications". From that we could move
on with the discussion of whether that was important, and if we
disagreed, we could understand where.
What freedom does this protect?
> It think it's free to terminate a public license completely and
> universally as soon as anybody brings and wins any suit against any
> party that claims that the work using some patented technology.
This is fairly useless: again by my poor understanding, most patent
suits are be settled out-of-court, since it's very expensive to do so
in court.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: