Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > >On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
> > ><mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > >> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
> > >
> > >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
> > >patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
> > >there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination?
> >
> > Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
> > requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
> > I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for
> > users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license.
>
> Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
> cause your license to terminate.
>
> "The copyright holder reserves the right to terminate your license at any
> time, without prior notice, and without your consent." is substantively
> different.
>
> Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
>
> Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
> another.
This is, IMHO, also the reason why "bad case of gas" terminations are
different from the problem of a third-party patent holder coming in and
terminating your ability to use the software. Although it's harder to work
out than a GPL violation, it is, in principle, possible to work out whether
you will get terminated for patent violation. No such luxury can possibly
exist (short of living in a game of perfect information) for a "for any
reason whatsoever" termination clause.
- Matt
Reply to: