Re: Open Software License v2.1
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
>> cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
>>
>> So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
>> minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
>
> I don't believe any patent enforcement against software is legitimate; I
> believe that enforcement of a patent against RSA code is just as destructive
> and abusive as enforcement against XOR mouse cursor code. (I also concur
> with Michael's response.)
>
> (This may be something close to the core of where we disagree.)
I disagree with you, but I suspect that your version of patent law
would be better than what we've got right now. So by all means, go
forth and lobby the various world governments to change patent law.
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?
-Brian
PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled
the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a
patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much. It's
the cancellation of the license for even seeking impartial justice
that bothers me.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: