Josh Triplet wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote: >> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user >> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the >> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the >> other acceptable? The user is equally screwed either way. > >A termination clause grants the author unilateral rights to terminate a >user's freedoms. The freedoms granted by a Free Software license must >not be revokable without cause, or those freedoms are false. >(Termination if the user violates the license is fine, as long as it >does not affect those downstream from that user.)
But... >Software patents screw everyone. :) The fact that software patents >allow control of software by a third-party is an inherent flaw in >software patents, and not something that any license on that software >can fix. The best a license can do is require that *no one* distribute >the software unless they can grant all the same freedoms; otherwise, a >patent holder could prevent everyone from distributing the software >*unless they have a patent license*, which essentially allows them to >make the software proprietary. ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have. Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at any time anyway? What practical benefit does this offer them? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
