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

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

Josh Triplett wrote:
> I agree that this proposition is not specific enough about the types of
> conditions that we consider acceptable.  I would propose the following
> addition to the above text, which I believe specifies a set of
> acceptable conditions that many on -legal agree with:
> """
> Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> consistent with the goal of upholding the freedoms of users over that
> software.  As such, we consider license condititions acceptable that
> terminate a licensee's rights to the software if that licensee raises a
> patent lawsuit claiming that the software in question infringes their
> patent(s).
> However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
> requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether
> those lawsuits are related to the software or not.  We do not support
> the practice of patenting software, but we find it unacceptable for
> licenses to place requirements which pertain to other, independent
> works.  We believe this policy is consistent with the principles behing
> in Debian Free Software Guideline 9, "License Must Not Contaminate Other
> Software".
> """

Strange typo here; s/behing in/behind/.

> What do others think of this proposal?
> - Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: