MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed > > under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL). > > Normally, you should include the licence text. > > > Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list > > archives about it. The findings were confusing: > > - There are many discussions (e.g. [2], [3]) about the patent > > clause (ยง7, paragraph 2) but no consensus on whether it is non-free or > > not. > > To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is > legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other > software. Regardless of what I think about software patents (I hate > them), why should use of this software affect independent software I > may release? We don't allow licences that try to force disclosure, > why should we allow ones that try to force accepting patent > infringment by IBM? > > It's a bit tricky to map this exactly onto the DFSG, but it seems a > "I can't believe this is free software" candidate to me.
It only terminates a patent license, not a copyright license. That just makes the license effectively mute about patents (which is true of most licenses we look at). Patents were also discussed for an Intel license [1]. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/02/msg00032.html