Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski <email@example.com> a Ã©critÂ :
> Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at
> all. It speaks about "Your" (ie, the user/distributor's) patents.
> So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's
> mirrors, a mirror which carries non-free like most mirrors do, owns a
> patent. Not a software patent -- a patent for a mousetrap or a drug.
> Now, let's say that EvilCorp wants to do some patent trolling. They
> buy out any of openwatcom's contributors -- it's a big patent with
> hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of them corporate. In
> fact, often you can't tell who owns CorpA without a longer research;
> it can be owned by CorpB and then by CorpC and finally by EvilCorp.
> Now, EvilCorp starts a litigation against the university/company
> which provides our mirror. The defender for all practical reasons
> just lost all his patents.
> The license isn't good enough even for non-free, I would say.
Adam, I do not understand why you say it can't go in non-free. Here is
the clause you are referring to:
3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the
licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to Sybase
and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your
Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other
than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display,
perform, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same
scope and extent as Sybase's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
It seems to me that the clause only grants Sybase rights to
distributors' patents for the purpose of developing and distributing
Open Watcom, not for any other purpose. Am I correct?
Jason Spiro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
When you open Windows, bugs get in!