On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 06:37:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it > > > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you > > > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like). > > > > > > If so, then the GPL is, too--the copyright holder "doesn't like" you > > > distributing binaries without source. Stop making ludicrous comparisons. > > > > No, that's entirely different. The MS EULA allows them to crush > > anything that they don't like. The GPL does no such thing. > > Nor does "don't enforce patents against this software", so I'm not sure > what you're arguing here.
It does. > > > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright > > > > holder. > > > > > > ... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, > > > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work > > > infringes a patent. > > > > > > Please not "or any licensee". This clause is not giving the licensee > > > special treatment. > > > > Right, it's giving the copyright holder special treatment. That's my point. > > Thinko due to neighboring words; s/licensee/licensor/. (I suppose I > should just use "copyright holder" and "user".) It's not giving the > copyright holder special treatment at all; it very explicitly and > deliberately treats the copyright holder and users equally. You've been tricked by lawyers. This clause says that only the copyright holder may file patent lawsuits. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
