On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:13:18 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
Non-Profit Open Software License (Non-Profit OSL) 3.0
[...]
1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, for the duration of
the copyright, to do
It seems that the IETF Trust uses the Non-Profit Open Software License
3.0 to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the
IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team).
The text of the license follows, as extracted from the PDF file linked
to from http
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It seems that the IETF Trust uses the Non-Profit Open Software License
3.0 to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the
IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team).
The text of the license follows, as extracted from
uses the Non-Profit Open Software License
3.0 to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the
IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team).
The text of the license follows, as extracted from the PDF file linked
to from http://trustee.ietf.org
:
It seems that the IETF Trust uses the Non-Profit Open Software License
3.0 to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the
IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team).
The text of the license follows, as extracted from the PDF file linked
to from http
of the Original Work and
Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original
Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be
licensed under this Non-Profit Open Software License or as provided in
section 17(d);
Isn't that just plain copyleft?
Yes
From the Non-Profit OSL 3.0:
5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use,
distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works
in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used
by anyone other than You, whether those works are
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
snip
Stop right there. You didn't invent the software I wrote, regardless of
what the overloaded US Patent Office might think.
Sure I did. Well, if you're writing some software to do
Diffie-Hellman key exchange, that Diffie and Hellman most certainly
*did* invent
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
snip
Stop right there. You didn't invent the software I wrote, regardless of
what the overloaded US Patent Office might think.
Sure I did. Well, if you're writing some software to do
Diffie-Hellman key exchange, that
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The form of both is Since person performs action, person shall
be punished by terminating their license. The claim was that this is
somehow acceptable.
For some subset of actions, this is acceptable. Suggesting that those
acceptable actions are
More generally, actions which would make free software not be
treated as free software would seem to be acceptable actions to
discriminate against.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:00:05PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That sounds overbroad.
If the license violate other provisions of the
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 12:02:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
You have yet to establish why this argument applies to the kind of
patent lawsuit clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
all licensees equally.
You have yet to establish what your argument has got to do
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:17:08AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:48PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On the other hand, lawsuits attempting to enforce patents on software
*are* intrinsically bad for free software.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The form of both is Since person performs action, person shall
be punished by terminating their license. The claim was that this is
somehow acceptable.
There are cases where this is acceptable.
For example, where action involves
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The form of both is Since person performs action, person shall
be punished by terminating their license. The claim was that this is
somehow acceptable.
There are cases where this is
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The form of both is Since person performs action, person shall
be punished by terminating their license. The claim was that this is
somehow acceptable.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:21:50AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:58:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Licensor brings suit against you alleging massive patent infringement
on your part. The chances of you successfully defending them all are
slim. Your choices are
On 2004-09-22 02:13:04 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob creates Emacs, under a claim patent infringement in this work
and lose your license to it license, which includes GIF decoding.
Lose your patent licence or all licence?
--
MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group
On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is
legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece
of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your patent
are
both Free and
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:04:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Bob creates Emacs, under a claim patent infringement in this work
and lose your license to it license, which includes GIF decoding.
Lose your patent licence or all licence?
Both patent and copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bob creates Emacs, under a claim patent infringement in this work
and lose your license to it license, which includes GIF decoding.
Joe derives XEmacs from that work. This inherits, among many other
things, GIF decoding.
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled
the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a
patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much.
That would spectacularly fail the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
: A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is
: on his hard drive, and sues A for that drive. B wins, and now only
: B can distribute
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license,
then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus,
this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license.
I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled
the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a
patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much.
If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license,
then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus,
this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license.
I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason it should be
accepted as obviously
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The situation the clause aims at is one where a patent owner seeks to
gain a monopoly on the original author's work by preventing everybody
else - including the original author himself - from using it.
Your use of
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is
legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece
of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your patent
are
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It think it's free to terminate a public license completely and
universally as soon as anybody brings and wins any suit against any
party that claims that the work using some patented technology.
Still fails the Tentacles of Evil test, this time
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot
easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual
projects to put things in perspective with one another ...
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
(Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails
concerning possible MUA problems ...)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
You haven't been reading my postings?
I doubt anyone is reading all of your postings, due
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:09:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bob creates Emacs, under a claim patent infringement in this work
and lose your license to it license, which includes GIF decoding.
Joe derives XEmacs from
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:36:54PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:09:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bob creates Emacs, under a claim patent infringement in this work
and lose your license to it
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, if he distributed under a non-patent-defense license, it would
*still* be non-free. So I'm not clear on how the so-called patent-defence
clause makes any difference here.
It wouldn't be:
Right but if the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:27:11AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Before Debian considers software free, we require proper licenses for
actively enforced patents; any claim of infringement would make the
software non-DFSG, even before a lawsuit is resolved.
This isn't established.
If Microsoft
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:06:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not sure it is, in this example. Well. It's important because
this is all part of a crusade against software patents taken too far
into a crusade against patents which happen to apply to software.
I understand what
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It's not a complete defense, by the way - a smart patent owner would
just try to sue everybody else *but* the copyright holder who uses the
code instead.
The OSL 2.1's clause causes termination if you allege patent violation
in
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free
software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade,
not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions
on the behavior of licensees of allegedly free software?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
invite you to quote
GPL 7 isn't relevant here. GPL 7 is for cases where someone else holds
the patent. [Note the uses of the phrase imposed on you and the phrase
do not excuse you.]
Try GPL 5 and 6, instead.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:39:38AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Right. So I set up a
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:29:10PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
If you distribute a program under the GPL, you lose most or all of
your ground to claim damages in court on the basis that the program
infringes your patent or copy rights. (GPL sections 5, 6, et al.)
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:02:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Word games. If you license something then you lose the ability to sue
people for acting in the manner you licensed them to do. Don't waste
my time; you know full well that's irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant?
If agreement not
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Consider the Malicious Software Corporation (MSC). Consider work X by
author Joe. MSC holds patent A covering X and patent B covering something
else. Valiant Defender (VD) holds patent C covering X.
Normally, MSC can sue any user of X for infringing patent A. With
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 06:37:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am not sure why some people
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:04:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
infringes a patent.
Please not or any licensee. This clause is not
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of
debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's
clear
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:25:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no
restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to
bargain in a license, to say I'll give you a license to this stuff,
but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own are
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
users, not excluding bad ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
forfeits the right to distribute the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
can
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is no
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
Oops, left part out. This should say something like:
Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
license in question,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
without any real cost.
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
costs.
It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you not sue the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Now, there's a practical issue: the copyright holder may change, so
the copyright holder isn't the original licensor--if I buy the copyright
for the work, the existing licensees aren't going to suddenly get a
license to *my* patents, as well. (I don't presently agree with
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, to infringe your bogus software patent.
I agree here.
If I'm suing someone on the grounds that the software they wrote is
illegal, it's probably a bad idea for me to be distributing their
software.
--
Raul
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
Work.
non-free: all available documentation seems to contaminate
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
contract-like
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
giving
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
since you are trying to
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing
about schrodinger's
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
minority. But that means
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(Wait. I thought of a case: suppose the patent license requires
a statement of credit -- and that's considered free -- and joe-rsa doesn't
contain the credit statement. Then the RSA patent holders would sue to
enforce their free patent license, and lose their free
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea is a variation on You may not use this software for
military applications and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:48PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It's
critically different from a copyleft, because there there isn't a
pre-existing property right.
Actually, yes there is: it's called copyright. The default in copyright law
is that a derivative work can only be
Andrew Suffield writes:
This is a very different scenario, where you could perform certain
actions until you accepted the license. Your freedom has been reduced
in a fundamental manner by this license. A copyleft license in no
manner reduces your freedom; after accepting the license, you can
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Which can trivially be twisted to smite any lawsuit you care to bring,
thereby granting them a de facto carte blanche license to do anything
they like. We've been over this already.
I'd agree with you if I could find the clause
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
giving
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
The clause we are
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on
Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot
easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual
projects to put things in perspective with one another ...
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(Essentially, by buying the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
(Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails
concerning possible MUA problems ...)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
You haven't been reading my postings?
I doubt anyone is reading all of your postings, due to your well-known
bad habit
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
invite you to quote where you think I've done so.
That isn't
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:48PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On the other hand, lawsuits attempting to enforce patents on software
*are* intrinsically bad for free software.
This argument says that since it's bad for nuclear power plant
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've been tricked by lawyers. This clause says that only the
copyright holder may file patent lawsuits.
These licenses tend to include patent licenses. As a result, the
copyright holder /doesn't/ get to sue you (at least, not if they want to
win).
Michael Poole wrote:
I think we all agree that If you sue the Original Author for any
patent violation, you lose rights granted by this license (e.g. RPSL
1.0) is not free, but that's different from either of the above.
Yes, we all agree on that. (Just to make it clear.)
--
This space
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you
can't do anything the
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
costs.
It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you not sue the licensor
doesn't impose
then it
would not be free. An example of a non-free license along these lines
is the old NPL.
You have yet to establish why this argument applies to the kind of
patent lawsuit clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
all licensees equally.
Michael Poole
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
I think you're taking this to a further extreme than necessary, and in
so doing passing straight through the truth out on to the other side.
That is, you're right about the situation you describe, but it's not the
interesting situation. The interesting way to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
minority. But that means that those people do
to the copyright holder then it
would not be free. An example of a non-free license along these lines
is the old NPL.
You have yet to establish why this argument applies to the kind of
patent lawsuit clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
all licensees equally.
You have yet
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
is similar in spirit and
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:38:51AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the
author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the
clause in the Open Software License, since it protects
all licensees equally.
You have yet to establish what your argument has got to do with the
price of tea in China.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:15:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
In the world of proprietary software, the copyright holders of that
software often have large numbers of software patents with which to
defend themselves. Free Software developers, as you said, do not
normally have software
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea is a variation on You may not use this software for
military applications and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
to be.
Why is discrimination against people who want to
Matthew Garrett writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea is a variation on You may not use this software for
military applications and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
to be.
Why is
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea is a variation on You may not use this software for
military applications and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
infringement, your license is terminated.
The other says that if you sue claiming that the
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
