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

Re: AROS License DFSG ok?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:50:12PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> > The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
> > patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free.  We
> > merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are
> > actively being enforced.  The current patent regime is sufficiently broken,
> > and so much inanely trivial activity is covered by patents, that *asking*
> > people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't want to
> > start down.

> I think there are more points on this spectrum than you imply.  For
> example, we currently treat as free those who distribute software
> covered by patents but ignore them -- their own patents or those of
> others.  We do *not* treat as free software covered by actively
> enforced patents, those that are not ignored.

Offering to license one's patents != enforcing one's patents.  I have no
problems with any clause that terminates a patent license; I only have
problems with people who are actively enforcing their patents against people
who don't have a license.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: