On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > By using copyright law to reinforce software patents (which are a load > of hooey to begin with of course), the license becomes non-free. A > notice that the software is subject to patents would be free, but making > it a binding part of the license is not, because the license will impact > users in jurisdictions (present or future) where the patent itself is > invalid, and even precludes using this code in non-compliant > implementations that have properly licensed the necessary patents. [...] > This is a common desire, but it's irreconcilably non-free. I concur with Steve's analysis. Fair warning, though; Craig Sanders and one or two other people may not, reasoning that because this part of the license claims to apply to "patented technology", not "software", and as we all know, the Debian Social Contract refers only to "software", not "patented technology", and since the Debian Free Software Guidelines therefore do not apply, "patented technology" is perfectly acceptable for inclusion in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution. However, that's not *my* opinion. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand branden@debian.org | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
Attachment:
pgp0Hb5GDPZKB.pgp
Description: PGP signature