On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > MJ Ray wrote: > > >On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes. > > > > > >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a > > >patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are > > >there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination? > > > > Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's > > requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code. > > I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for > > users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license. > > Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will > cause your license to terminate. > > "The copyright holder reserves the right to terminate your license at any > time, without prior notice, and without your consent." is substantively > different. > > Termination due to non-compliance is one thing. > > Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite > another.
This is, IMHO, also the reason why "bad case of gas" terminations are different from the problem of a third-party patent holder coming in and terminating your ability to use the software. Although it's harder to work out than a GPL violation, it is, in principle, possible to work out whether you will get terminated for patent violation. No such luxury can possibly exist (short of living in a game of perfect information) for a "for any reason whatsoever" termination clause. - Matt
