Andrew Suffield writes: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > Long-standing conclusions, summarised: > > > > > > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or > > > whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for > > > any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get > > > contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions have to be > > > considered like any other restriction (invert the sense of the > > > conditional to get the restriction). > > > > > > Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple > > > license, is probably non-free. DFSG-free licenses give things to the > > > licensee, not to the copyright holder. They are not a trade (although > > > the grant of permissions does not have to be the most generous > > > possible), even if their social behaviour resembles one. > > > > > > (Corollary of these two: terminating a license for any reason other > > > than non-compliance is probably non-free) > > > > Other corollary: Claiming something is a "contract-like provision" is > > a useful wedge to make something like the GPL a non-free license. > > That's a summary of an old discussion which apparently you didn't > read. Redefining it arbitrary to something else will obviously > generate an arbitrary result.
Then please stop arbitrarily defining "contract-like provision" to what is convenient for you. Others will have their own arbitrary definitions that are useful to them. I think you are extending the conclusion of that discussion beyond the point where it is supportable; there are fairly clear differences between "You must do X to get these rights" and "You lose these rights if you do Y," especially when Y prevents others from exercising those same rights. By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work. > > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is > > > non-free. > > > > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant. > > Congratulations, you missed the point. I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it productive to make an unsupported insult like that? Michael Poole
