On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is > >> > the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them? > >> > >> Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer > >> using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he > >> holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his > >> rights to do anything with the code? > > > > Why should we license any copyrights or patents to him when he's not > > willing to reciprocate? It's his right to charge us cash for using his > > patent, but then it's our right to then demand he pay us for using our > > copyrighted and patented intellectual property. > > Well, no reason, really. The same no reason that you license your > copyrights to those who aren't willing to reciprocate. You have every > right to make that demand -- but then what you're doing isn't Free > Software, just a very generous shared source program. > > It's still a cool thing, it's just not Debian's cool thing.
GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any different? Rob -- Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org Development Support: http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
