[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')



On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> > have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]

> That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
> implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC.  In general, it seems
> a little risky to rely on it. If we know a particular place's copyright
> law is in use, or if someone smarter says "this holds everywhere and
> here's references" then I'd be happy with that broad claim. :-/

My point was that, given that the proposed copyright license restriction
does *not* protect against the described attack (in most jurisdictions),
this example doesn't really justify why we would want to allow such a
restriction.  This restriction would have other real impacts on distributors
and modifiers, as you mentioned, which we should be concerned about -- but
the OP didn't address those at all.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: