Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is > > >> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other > > >> software. [...] > > > > > > 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]. > > > > This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in > > a position of strength if software patents are involved. > > Hmm. I guess I read license a little too quickly. What is rather > amusing is that IBM has now lost all of its patent rights anyone else > may have given them, since they counter-sued SCO over some patent > rights.
Gah. I really have to read more carefully. I read the license again, and it says that you have to sue a Contributor or sue about a patent related to the Program. So if SCO had distributed stuff under the IBM CPL, then IBM would have lost all patent rights. It still sounds like a license bug, but not quite so serious. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]