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

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:46:47PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual
> > unless terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted
> > hereunder will terminate:
> > (d) upon written notice from Licensor if You, at any time during the
> > term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against
> > any third party alleging that the Covered Code itself (excluding combinations
> > with other software or hardware) infringes any patent (including by cross-
> > claim or counter claim in a lawsuit).
> I'm undecided about these clauses.  One argument against them seems to
> be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
> for that

I don't think that's an argument, but rather a warning. Mixing them
usually results in trouble.

> (I do think Nathanael is misstating the case a bit: despite the long
> debates on this topic, I still don't have a very strong opinion myself,
> and I don't think there are yet any consenses about patent defense clauses
> at all.)

My impression has always been of a not-sure-probably-not-free
attitude, combined with "but ones like this are clearly not a problem,
so if that's good enough for you then please do that instead".

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: