Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:08:58AM +0000, Jason Spiro wrote:
> Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> a écrit :
> > 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.
> <<<<<<
I mean 12.1c:
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will
terminate:
[...]
(c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the term
of this License, commence an action for patent infringement
(including as a cross claim or counterclaim) against Sybase or any
Contributor.
> 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?
12.1c appears to mention _any_ patents, even mousetrap or drug ones.
However, I see now that this clause only _terminates_ the license,
without making you liable. So, that university/company who owns that
mousetrap patent can simply remove openwatcom from mirrors they
provide for Debian.
This is obviously non-free, but not worse than any other
withdrawable-at-whim license.
Of course, that' just my analysis -- what would you say, folks?
Cheers,
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
Reply to: