Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote: >> At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is >> obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way >> we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of >> patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free at any >> time as a result. > >In the worst case, the patent suits could be fought on the grounds that the >patents are illegal and invalid. There are entire lobbying organizations >working to deal with this problem.
Many of the patents are not obviously illegal and invalid. >(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I >would say "Get that program out!") You'd be going against Debian policy, then. >In contrast, if the copyright holder declares his right to terminate the >license based on a termination clause, there really is no arguing with it. >At all. It's not just a lawsuit, it's "give up and go home". Which is the effective situation we're in with patents. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
