Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright >> license in question, but terminates on any lawsuit over physical >> property. So if you're using my software which is written under this >> license, and you sue to get me out of your house or to give back your >> car, you lose the rights to the software. > > One difference between this and the (narrow) patent clause is that by > asserting patent rights to a software someone can prohibit > distribution of this software under the GPL (GPL #7). Unlike the > property example you gave there is a direct connection. That said, I > have no opinion (yet) if this makes such a clause non-free or not.
If I assert property rights to the physical matter of the copy, then I can prevent distribution under the GPL too -- you can't copy it if you can't get to the copy. The GPL2's patent clause is, I think, exactly the right balance of freedoms regarding patents: nothing about lawsuits, just a requirement that you grant all the rights you have, and if you can't grant all those rights than you may not distribute at all.. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
