On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2004-09-17 10:05]: > > The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software > > without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in > > which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then > > they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various > > licenses that terminate if you do something "wrong" - we've just > > come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be > > allowed to do that thing. > > > > In the past, we've accepted various compromises on freedom because > > they help free software. > > I agree with this reasoning and think that we should treat at least > "Any patent action against the licensor connected to the licensed > work" as free. I'd like to hear more possible scenarios what "Any > patent action against the licensor" might mean in reality, such as > Nathanael's IBM example. I think such possible scenarios/examples > are a good way to think about the implications of these clauses. Here's a scenario for you: Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in its license. Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes an extra feature. Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the modified version infringes some of its patents. Company A no longer has a license to the modified version, which it didn't want anyway, so it is not concerned about this. Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill its modified version. Company B has no practical defence against this lawsuit, so the modified version is killed. They have been effectively trapped in a double-bind. I just pulled that one out of the air. There are countless more like it. All you are accomplishing is to permit copyright holders more control over their software; this cannot be a good thing. Trying to game the legal system *doesn't work*. This is inevitable from first principles; significant arbitrary restrictions are non-free. You will always be able to find ways to abuse them to gain arbitrary degrees of control over the software. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature