On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray 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.
[...] > > Are there patents on the covered work? I guess that is the determining > factor, as otherwise the patent licence seems irrelevant. Why include > it if there are no patents, though? In my case it is a rather trivial Perl module (I18N::AcceptLanguage), to write it was probably less time consuming than this discussion. Perhaps I could ask the author why he uses such a complicated license for such a trvial piece of software. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/
