On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Which can trivially be twisted to smite any lawsuit you care to bring, > thereby granting them a de facto carte blanche license to do anything > they like. We've been over this already.
I'd agree with you if I could find the clause in osl-2.1 which states this. The closest I can find are 10) and 11). 10) is clearly limited to patent suits that claim that the software in question is illegal. I don't see that losing the right to distribute illegal software is anything like a de facto carte blanche license to do anything they like. 11) Says that you can't sue someone in a location where they're not active. I don't see that this requirement is anything like a de facto carte blanche license to do anything they like, either. Maybe you can point me at the clause or section that I'm missing? If this is covered some previous post, just identify that post so I can unambiguously find it. Thanks, -- Raul
