Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think the purpose of the clause is not to punish patenteers but to > > protect the authors. > > There is no protection to be gained here, unless the authors want > protection for their own unlawful patent infringements. > > Patents that concern the licenced software itself are covered by > 8.2(a), which, I think is unproblematic. > > > if I said that someone who murders me loses the right to use my > > software, that would be (a paranoid and futile attempt at) > > self-protection. Or would you call that discrimination, too? > > Wrong analogy. The above says that that if you steal somebody's > car and they demand it back they lose the right to the software.
Both analogies are misleading, though neither is wrong. It depends on your attitude to the law. If you believe that patents are evil and should not exist, then protecting yourself against being sued for patent infringement is rather similar to protecting yourself against being physically assaulted. Perhaps a slightly better analogy would be with the warranty disclaimer clause, which could be viewed as discrimination against people who make their living by suing people who try to help them. (See any tabloid newspaper for examples.) I think software authors have a right to reject patents and attempt to protect themselves against what _they_ see as an assault against them. I'm not saying that you should regard patenteers as parasites; I'm merely saying that it does not seem fair to refuse other people the right to do so. Edmund
