Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede > > > that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free > > > software than traditional patents. > > > Why should that matter in your eyes? > > Because, we're talking about proticting oneself from threats, not > about getting a free ride on everybody else's other kinds of patents.
The difference between those two cases would appear to be a political value judgement. > > > 2) The only thing that terminates here is patent licences - which is > > > separate from the copyright license spoken about by the DFSG. > > > If there is a patent on anything in the software, then it amounts to > > the same thing. > > No - because the DFSG is basically about *copyright* licensing. Is it? Then why does the DFSG not even mention "copyright"? > The > existence of a patent may render the software undistributable at all, > but that's not a quistion of whether it's copyright license is free or > not. The document we are discussing is not just a copyright licence. In fact, like the DFSG, it doesn't even refer to copyright (except one mention in the exhibit). > > However, the cat is out of the bag, everyone accepts these licenses as > > free (even the FSF), > > I haven't seen anybody accept the license we're talking about here as > free. But the IBM licence has been accepted as free, and it seems to be rather similar. Yes, the RIACA licence goes a bit further, but I can't see a major qualitative difference between the two cases. Edmund
