>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJ> On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MJ> wrote:
>> Please could you answer to his question?
MJ> I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see
MJ> it in the forwarded email.
MJ> For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL
MJ> 2.0 is not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright
MJ> permission for any software patent action, including ones
MJ> unrelated to the covered software. The Licensor is also free
MJ> to initiate patent actions against the Licensee and this seems
MJ> to hinder the Licensee's defence. I see this as a type of bad
MJ> termination clause, which wouldn't be tolerated for copyrights
MJ> alone.
I don't think this claim follows from the text of the DFSG and so I
think it is open to interpretation.
In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions. So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
such licenses while not violating the text of the DFSG.
However, I don't really want to get into that debate now. The OSL 2.0
seems clearly non-free as discussed later in the thread. Even if it
is free, software with a clickwrap provision seems inappropriate to
place in Debian.
I'm sending this message as a standing offer to have the debate over
where to draw the line about patent termination clauses if the outcome
of that debate actually matters. I contend in this case that the
outcome does not matter so the debate is not worth the resources it
would consume.
