[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: AROS License DFSG ok?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK.  For instance, it could be over 
> >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore.
> >>
> >>It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent
> >>is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is
> >>it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions
> >>in the first place?
> > 
> > Thus is not just about software patents.  If I have invented a new
> > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I
> > would like to sue them to get them to stop.  If they're a Participant
> > here, I can't do so!  At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright
> > license to this software.
> Actually, no, you don't.  8.2a says that if you sue a Participant saying
> *the software* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license.  8.2b
> says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only
> their patent license for the software*.  Hence Matthew's statement that
> "It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.".

That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though.  We do require the rights
restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but the
restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as though we do.  The ugly
patent situation seems to make it impossible to treat everything with proper
consistency.  I don't like a line of reasoning that says "we don't require
the right to do the things restricted by patents", but at the same time, we
really don't require explicit patent licenses.


Glenn Maynard

Reply to: