Re: Open Software License v2.1
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
>> invite you to quote where you think I've done so.
>
> That isn't my claim.
>
> Instead, I said that, as phrased, the following seemed to include that
> claim, and I asked for a phrasing which was not so inclusive:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
> > with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
> > I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
> > giving theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back
> > room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
>
>> > If you have a patent which applies to the program, and you want to
>> > distribute, you have to grant a license to that patent to all third
>> > parties.
>>
>> Having just read GPL 7 again, to make sure I'm doing this right, I
>> think I can just issue a license to use the patent for a given
>> purpose, and that's enough. I'm not completely certain of that.
>
> GPL 7 isn't relevant here. GPL 7 is for cases where someone else holds
> the patent. [Note the uses of the phrase "imposed on you" and the phrase
> "do not excuse you".]
>
> Try GPL 5 and 6, instead.
Right. So I set up a little corporation whose purpose is to hold the
patents, and I deal in the copyrights. Now we're back in GPL 7 land.
>> I'm sure I only have to grant a license to that patent to all parties
>> who receive a copy of the work.
>
> You can't restrict that grant to only those parties -- they must be able
> to further distribute the program without any further restrictions.
Why must they be able to do that? I can distribute in compliance with
GPL 6, and then they get stopped by GPL 7 through no fault of mine.
>> > The scenario you seem to propose looks to me like this:
>>
>> First, B files for a patent and publishes an invention. For the sake
>> of argument, say it's something legitimately innovative.
>
> If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license,
> then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus,
> this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license.
I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason it should be
accepted as obviously true.
>> > A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
>> > patent restricted, and sues A. B wins, and now only B can distribute the
>> > software -- A can't [and no one else can] without buying a license from B.
>> >
>> > You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents this scenario is not
>> > good, and that the reason it's not good is that it prevents this scenario.
>>
>> It might be good. It isn't free. If it is free, why isn't the
>> following free:
>>
>> : A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
>> : on his hard drive, and sues A for that drive. B wins, and now only
>> : B can distribute the software -- A can't [and no one else can]
>> : without getting a license from B.
>
> This scenario of yours has nothing to do with the freeness of the license.
It's just your patent scenario from above, rephrased to deal with
physical property. Are you claiming that a license which prevents
this scenario, by terminating the copyright license to anyone who
sues regarding physical media containing the software, is free?
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: