On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 01:50, Kevin Rosenberg wrote: > Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate it, Adam. I'm hoping to package > for Debian the Common Lisp wilbur-rdf library > [http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net]. > > Would you declare, then, that the Nokia license section 2.d3 violates > the "derived works" DSFG? The guideline says the derived work allow > derived works to be distributed under the same terms as the license, > but the derived works will not be granted a patent license if they > infringe on the any patents.
Here's how I see the issue facing Debian: 1. Licences like MIT/X and BSD don't mention software patent licensing at all. It is at least arguable that if an entity releases code under such licences that they have provided an implicit patent grant so free modification and distribution is possible. 2. Licences like the GPL require that relevant patents must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. 3. Licences like Nokia's remove any presumption of an implicit patent grant and in fact make explicit that (some?) modified works aren't granted any patent licence. I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the DFSG but 3. appears to affect "Derived Works", "Free Distribution" and "Distribution of License" (those who modify the software effectively need the execution of an additional patent licence by Nokia--and there is no reason to believe it would even be upon royalty-free terms). I believe Andrew's suggestion that we should consider software under this licence on a case by case basis is not appropriate. The Debian project expects to have the same rights to distribute modified software as the original software. But regardless of this potential point of philosophical disagreement I still think we would both agree that Nokia is the worst possible candidate for a more lenient approach. Furthermore many people usually avoid reading software patents so they can potentially avoid _knowingly_ infringing upon them (yes we can see Nokia has a huge cache of software patents but I didn't click upon a single link). A rule that Debian has to research relevant patents before allowing in software under this licence would undermine individuals attempts to limit their legal exposure (e.g. damages could be higher for known infringement). Nokia is under no obligation to license their patents upon royalty-free terms for the software they distribute. But if they will not grant the same patent licence for modified versions of the software I don't see how the licence is DFSG-free. Regards, Adam
