> The language in that clause is practically undecipherable. Their
> lawyer didn't strive for readability.
That's fair. I'm going by the language in the paragraph before that one
when I distinguish that paragraph being about patents from the previous
one being about copyright.
> If the software contains no patented material, why even have the
> clause?
These 12 lawyers were very conscious that they were crafting IBM's first
Open Source license, and that it would be re-used on other products. Also,
they may embed new inventions as they develop the product.
> My guess is that IBM has patented so much stuff that even they don't
> know if their own software is covered by their own patents.
Yes.
> They've got the largest patent portfolio of anybody.
We want a blanket license for Open Source on that entire portfolio.
This is one of the goals of the relationship we are building with them.
There is no doubt that IBM's patent portfolio could cause us real hassles,
but right now they think of Open Source as a serious strategy for business
and they want to work with us _more_. So, we will continue to pursue the
patents issue.
> On paper, at least, it means that IBM could potentially sue
> somebody who just clips some code and doesn't read the license
> carefully (because it was in Debian's main distribution).
Compare this to what they could do under the BSD license. They could
distribute a program and then sue you for infringing the patents in it!
> It's still really ugly, though. There must be some better way for IBM
> to protect it's patent portfolio, and still be able to release open
> source stuff.
Agreed. We will continue the dialogue about this with them.
> It would be easier for IBM if they crafted their license to use a
> copyleft, then they easily could grant rights to use their patents -
> without diluting their patent portfolio when it comes time to sue a
> proprietary user.
I am concerned about how easily one can embed copyleft code in a
proprietary program, for example by using a copylefted server to provide
services to a proprietary client. CORBA makes this really easy. This could
be used to abuse the copyleft as a patent license.
> My initial read of the license set off alarm bells, but I now see
> where it's coming from.
It does have room for improvement, though. I'm working on it with them.
By the way, I really appreciate that they gave me credit in their slashdot
announcement. They don't seem like a faceless mega-corporation so far, more
like a bunch of nice people trying to evangelize their own company.
Thanks
Bruce
--
The $70 Billion US "budget surplus" hardly offsets our $5 Trillion national
debt. The debt increased by $133 Billion in the same year we found a
"surplus".
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-620-3502 NCI-1001
