Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Henning Makholm: >> | 3.2. Availability of Source Code. >> | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be >> | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License >> | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted >> | Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an >> | Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic >> | Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve >> | (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at >> | least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular >> | Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are >> | responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains >> | available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is >> | maintained by a third party. > Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered > DFSG-free. Furthermore, it's weaker than the corresponding GPL > clause. No, it is significantly more restrictive than the corresponding GPL clause. The GPL allows me to put the the binary and the source code on my website and then later remove both. The above clause requires me to make arrangements to keep the source code for a longer period in time than the binary, and even threatens me with legal action if fire consumes the machine within the 12-month period or new ICANN rules causes my domain name to be appropriated, or whatever. This is very clearly a non-free requirement. -- Henning Makholm "Det må være spændende at bo på en kugle. Har I nogen sinde besøgt de egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?"
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:50:12PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to > > patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We > > merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are > > actively being enforced. The current patent regime is sufficiently broken, > > and so much inanely trivial activity is covered by patents, that *asking* > > people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't want to > > start down. > I think there are more points on this spectrum than you imply. For > example, we currently treat as free those who distribute software > covered by patents but ignore them -- their own patents or those of > others. We do *not* treat as free software covered by actively > enforced patents, those that are not ignored. Offering to license one's patents != enforcing one's patents. I have no problems with any clause that terminates a patent license; I only have problems with people who are actively enforcing their patents against people who don't have a license. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:08:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > There is a somewhat recursive, but self-consistent, way to deal with > this. We don't require explicit patent licenses when it appears the > patents aren't being enforced. Presence of these clauses is excellent > evidence that the patents are being enforced -- or at least no longer > *not* being enforced. Most of the time it's just evidence that some idiot manager has selected the longest license they could find, which happened to be written by a lawyer with an overactive imagination. There probably *aren't* any relevant patents in most cases. If the copyright holder admits to actually having patents, *then* we might have a problem. Casewise basis for this, as always. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to > patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We > merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are > actively being enforced. The current patent regime is sufficiently broken, > and so much inanely trivial activity is covered by patents, that *asking* > people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't want to > start down. I think there are more points on this spectrum than you imply. For example, we currently treat as free those who distribute software covered by patents but ignore them -- their own patents or those of others. We do *not* treat as free software covered by actively enforced patents, those that are not ignored. This is perhaps something in between: someone who doesn't ignore patents, who does enforce them, but who claims to have a free way of doing so. We would not accept that way as free if applied to copyrights -- a license that said "BSD, but if you sue any copyright holder for copyright infringement you lose all rights" would not be Free. In general, I think these booby-trap clauses are bad policy. In specific, I think either the software was free without them or it cannot be free with them. We would not normally regard software containing a technique covered by an enforced patent as free. So this isn't free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:37:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > *asking* people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't > want to start down. ... and *not* asking for licenses to do things is an equally slippery slope. Patents don't give any good choices, unfortunately. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:40:46PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be > > >>>over > > >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. > > >>It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent > > >>is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is > > >>it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions > > >>in the first place? > > > Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new > > > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I > > > would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant > > > here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright > > > license to this software. > > Actually, no, you don't. 8.2a says that if you sue a Participant saying > > *the software* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license. 8.2b > > says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only > > their patent license for the software*. Hence Matthew's statement that > > "It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.". > That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though. We do require the > rights > restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but the > restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as though we do. The ugly > patent situation seems to make it impossible to treat everything with proper > consistency. I don't like a line of reasoning that says "we don't require > the right to do the things restricted by patents", but at the same time, we > really don't require explicit patent licenses. I don't think this is a gray area at all. Mind that I haven't read the license at the root of this thread, but if the recap given above is accurate, I believe that is a perfectly good, free license where patents are concerned. The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are actively being enforced. The current patent regime is sufficiently broken, and so much inanely trivial activity is covered by patents, that *asking* people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't want to start down. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:22:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > have the "right" to do something without a license (although we might; > it may not be patented), just as we might not have the right to copy a Or there might be prior art, which means that the patent is without merit. Typically, relevant prior art will not be in the "easy places to look", but that's one of the nice things about free software (such as the body published by Debian) -- it helps establish a rather voluminous and easily findable record of prior art. The downside is that Debian isn't really designed to be this kind of archive -- it will probably be a good place to start looking, but if you want to find the earliest instance of some algorithm you'll probably eventually want to head upstream. And, of course, prior art -- even for "software patents" -- doesn't need to exist in the form of software. Debian is just a small part of the total picture here. -- Raul
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:08:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though. We do require the > > rights > > restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but > > the > > restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as though we do. The > > ugly > > patent situation seems to make it impossible to treat everything with proper > > consistency. I don't like a line of reasoning that says "we don't require > > the right to do the things restricted by patents", but at the same time, we > > really don't require explicit patent licenses. > > There is a somewhat recursive, but self-consistent, way to deal with > this. We don't require explicit patent licenses when it appears the > patents aren't being enforced. Presence of these clauses is excellent > evidence that the patents are being enforced -- or at least no longer > *not* being enforced. But this isn't really consistent with other practice: we might not really have the "right" to do something without a license (although we might; it may not be patented), just as we might not have the right to copy a document without a license (although we might; it may be in the public domain). They're treated differently for legitimate reasons, but it's fundamentally not very consistent (patent law's failing, not Debian's). (Of course, I'd like to be able to see this policy in a clear and consistent way--if a way of looking at these policies can be suggested that's consistent, great. But the real laws we're dealing with--the stuff that's forcing some of these policies--are inconsistent and broken, so not being able to have as strict a patent policy as a copyright policy isn't unexpected.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 12:31 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent > > is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is > > it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions > > in the first place? > > Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I > would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant > here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright > license to this software. This is 8.2b. The only thing it terminates is your patent license. 8.2a terminates your copyright license, but only if you're suing over the piece of software covered by that license. Your situation can't arise. Please stop Cc:ing me on replies. I don't need two copies of your mail. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >> >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be >> >>>over >> >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. >> >> >> >>It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent >> >>is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is >> >>it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions >> >>in the first place? >> > >> > Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new >> > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I >> > would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant >> > here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright >> > license to this software. >> >> Actually, no, you don't. 8.2a says that if you sue a Participant saying >> *the software* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license. 8.2b >> says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only >> their patent license for the software*. Hence Matthew's statement that >> "It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.". Thanks for the correction, Josh. > That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though. We do require the > rights > restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but the > restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as though we do. The ugly > patent situation seems to make it impossible to treat everything with proper > consistency. I don't like a line of reasoning that says "we don't require > the right to do the things restricted by patents", but at the same time, we > really don't require explicit patent licenses. There is a somewhat recursive, but self-consistent, way to deal with this. We don't require explicit patent licenses when it appears the patents aren't being enforced. Presence of these clauses is excellent evidence that the patents are being enforced -- or at least no longer *not* being enforced. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be > >>>over > >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. > >> > >>It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent > >>is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is > >>it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions > >>in the first place? > > > > Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new > > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I > > would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant > > here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright > > license to this software. > > Actually, no, you don't. 8.2a says that if you sue a Participant saying > *the software* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license. 8.2b > says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only > their patent license for the software*. Hence Matthew's statement that > "It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.". That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though. We do require the rights restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but the restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as though we do. The ugly patent situation seems to make it impossible to treat everything with proper consistency. I don't like a line of reasoning that says "we don't require the right to do the things restricted by patents", but at the same time, we really don't require explicit patent licenses. Yuck. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that >>>*anything* infringes any patent. >>> >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be >>>over >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. >> >>It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent >>is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is >>it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions >>in the first place? > > Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new > Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I > would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant > here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright > license to this software. Actually, no, you don't. 8.2a says that if you sue a Participant saying *the software* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license. 8.2b says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only their patent license for the software*. Hence Matthew's statement that "It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.". - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that >> *anything* infringes any patent. >> >> As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be >> over >> Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. > > It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent > is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is > it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions > in the first place? Thus is not just about software patents. If I have invented a new Wheel, and microsoft rips me off and begins producing my Wheel, I would like to sue them to get them to stop. If they're a Participant here, I can't do so! At least, if I do sue them, I lose my copyright license to this software. Surely you agree that a clause restricting licensees from suing licensors at all would be non-free? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that > *anything* infringes any patent. > > As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be over > Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is it more of a problem than a license which didn't grant those permissions in the first place? > So the license is definitely not DFSG-free. This statement disagrees with several voiced opinions in the discussion on -project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
>Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Is the AROS license DFSG ok? >> >> http://www.aros.org/license.html Michael Poole wrote: >Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the >DFSG. Clause 8.2a terminates rights to the Contributor Version if you allege in a lawsuit that the Contributor Version violates a patent. Most of us think this is OK... (If that's all it does, of course.) However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that *anything* infringes any patent. As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be over Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. So the license is definitely not DFSG-free. The clauses in 3.4 may also be problematic, but I haven't looked at the license too closely. 6.2 is an undesirable clause, though not DFSG-free.
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered > >> DFSG-free. > > > > No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html > > The reasons used for declaring the MPL non-free are either not embodied > in the DFSG, or are based on an interpretation of DFSG 3 that I disagree > with. It may not be clearly free, but it's certainly not clearly > non-free. ... hence my choice of words and footnote. The conclusion remains: citing the MPL isn't enough to convince a lot of people that this or that clause is free. (Citing licenses with strong consensus, like the GPL, works; citing contended licenses doesn't.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered >> DFSG-free. > > No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html The reasons used for declaring the MPL non-free are either not embodied in the DFSG, or are based on an interpretation of DFSG 3 that I disagree with. It may not be clearly free, but it's certainly not clearly non-free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered > DFSG-free. No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html The situation, roughly, is that while the MPL is non-free, Mozilla is being relicensed under an MPL/GPL/LGPL triple-license, and Debian gives leeway for this type of thing to be sorted out (though this one's being given more time than most would, I guess). http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html This doesn't mean that this clause is necessarily DFSG-unfree, just that citing the MPL isn't enough to convince a lot of people. [1] "in my opinion", "in the opinion of most of d-legal", or whatever the current necessary line is to avoid another pointless thread on that topic -- Glenn Maynard
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
* Henning Makholm: > | 3.2. Availability of Source Code. > | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be > | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License > | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted > | Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an > | Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic > | Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve > | (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at > | least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular > | Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are > | responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains > | available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is > | maintained by a third party. > > And regardless of freedom, Debian's mirror network cannot comply with > this condition, so it would seem that it cannot even go into non-free, > unless absolutely no upstream changes are necessary (in which case > security updates would still be impossible). Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered DFSG-free. Furthermore, it's weaker than the corresponding GPL clause.
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such >>> Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly >>> infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such >>> Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked >>> effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, >>> distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that >>> Participant. > This clause does indeed seem to terminate your patent license from that > one participant if you sue that participant over any patent, which is > far stronger than the previous clause, and possibly problematic (though > still better than clauses that terminate the copyright license). > I think (a) is not a problem at all, but (b) might be. I tentatively think (b) is a DFSG problem if and only if the code in question is covered by a patent that we would otherwise worry about. -- Henning Makholm "The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communicaion at NASA."
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Scripsit Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is the AROS license DFSG ok? > > http://www.aros.org/license.html In addition to the patent termination, I don't thinkt this is a free condition: | 3.2. Availability of Source Code. | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted | Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an | Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic | Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve | (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at | least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular | Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are | responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains | available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is | maintained by a third party. And regardless of freedom, Debian's mirror network cannot comply with this condition, so it would seem that it cannot even go into non-free, unless absolutely no upstream changes are necessary (in which case security updates would still be impossible). -- Henning Makholm "What has it got in its pocketses?"
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Michael Poole wrote: > Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>Is the AROS license DFSG ok? >> >>http://www.aros.org/license.html > > > Likely problems: > > >> 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent >> infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions) >> against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial >> Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is >> referred to as "Participant") alleging that: >> >> (a) such Participant's Contributor Version directly or >> indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights >> granted by such Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or >> 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant >> terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt >> of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a >> mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future >> use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw >> Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version >> against such Participant. If within 60 days of notice, a >> reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually >> agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim >> is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You >> under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 automatically terminate at the >> expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above. > > Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the > DFSG. This particular termination clause is less problematic than most: it only terminates your rights to the software if you sue *claiming that the software infringes your patent*. Most of the termination clauses people have problems with terminate your rights for any patent-related suit, not necessarily related to the software; for example, clause (b) below. :) >> (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such >> Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly >> infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such >> Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked >> effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, >> distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that >> Participant. > > I read this as meaning that a lawsuit claiming any patent infringement > by a Participant not related to the software terminates the patentee's > license, which seems unreasonable. This clause does indeed seem to terminate your patent license from that one participant if you sue that participant over any patent, which is far stronger than the previous clause, and possibly problematic (though still better than clauses that terminate the copyright license). I think (a) is not a problem at all, but (b) might be. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Florian Weimer writes: > * Michael Poole: > > [something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL] > > > Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the > > DFSG. > > But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the > MPL (although I haven't compared the licenses word-for-word). I did not compare it word-for-word either. I have said before that I think that termination clause (as opposed to the second one) is a reasonable mechanism for dealing with software patents; I mentioned it only to save the trouble of someone else pointing it out separately. Michael Poole
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
* Michael Poole: [something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL] > Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the > DFSG. But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the MPL (although I haven't compared the licenses word-for-word).
Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is the AROS license DFSG ok? > > http://www.aros.org/license.html Likely problems: > 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent > infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions) > against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial > Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is > referred to as "Participant") alleging that: > > (a) such Participant's Contributor Version directly or > indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights > granted by such Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or > 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant > terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt > of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a > mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future > use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw > Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version > against such Participant. If within 60 days of notice, a > reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually > agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim > is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You > under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 automatically terminate at the > expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above. Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the DFSG. > (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such > Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly > infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such > Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked > effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, > distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that > Participant. I read this as meaning that a lawsuit claiming any patent infringement by a Participant not related to the software terminates the patentee's license, which seems unreasonable. The relationship of 8.2(a) and 8.2(b) is ambiguous; it seems to only make sense if you assume the appropriate conjunction is "or," but it would be good to get a clarification. Michael Poole
