Raul Miller wrote: >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> ...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? > >I think you're trying to contrast software patents with choice of venue >clauses. Is that the case? If so, your question is probably shorthand >for something rather different from what you seem to be asking.
No, I'm trying to suggest that the existence of a license termination clause isn't necessarily non-free. The thread seems to have wandered slightly. >It's likely that if a software patent were imposed by the author or >copyright holder of some software that we'd consider that piece of >software non-free. Is that what you're trying to argue should be the >case for choice of venue clauses? No... -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
