I am glad that Mahesh has replied. I have noticed use of the
debian-legal MPL discussion to justify condemnation of the term "free
software" in messages to fsug-kochi-discuss. As some should already
know, the Open Source Initiative group famously claim "no position" on
patents. As such, did they really look at patent-related clauses in
the MPL before approving it?
Given that, I really welcome an "opensource" interest in patent
clauses. I don't think that the MPL granting a non-free patent licence
for non-existant patents is a severe problem, though.
On 2004-06-23 20:11:51 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not.
I did not write "actively enforced".
If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of the software released, people can very easily sneak in
patent time bombs into the codebase.
I am aware of the dangers of patents for some debian users.
No consensus was reached on the Nokia Open Source L as far as I can
The patent clauses for MPL and Nokia license are identical. [...]
The probabilities of Nokia and Mozilla holding patents are different,
aren't they?
Approving licenses simply because the non DFSG freeness arises from
patents which are not enforced is a bad precedent.
Rest assured, I do not recommend approving this licence. I don't see
why we cannot say "some works under this are free and some are
non-free". I think that each MPL-covered work needs inspection.
What if Nokia releases something under the MPL?
It depends if they have patented any of it.
I hope this reply is interesting,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
