Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me >> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license. > > That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing > about schrodinger's cat. > > If you win the lawsuit, then you're right, it's not a free license, and no > one should be distributing the software because it's illegal software. > [Though it might be possible to distribute the software under some > proprietary license if the patent holder(s) and the copyright holder(s) > cooperate.]
And if I don't have a license to those copyrights after that lawsuit, then I never had a free license in the first place. > If you don't win the lawsuit, then the suit was bogus, and you've > inflicted bogus costs on me. I don't see any argument that the license > is not free in this case. That's certainly true. But it should be left to the courts and evolving intellectual capital law. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
