> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms > >> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If > >> I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work > >> giving theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back > >> room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You seem to be describing the difference between a public domain work > > and a copyleft work, with the claim that copyleft software isn't free. > > > > Can you express your concept differently, in a way which doesn't include > > this kind of nonsense? On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:46:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > This isn't nonsense. The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense. > A copyleft license unambiguously releases rights for me to modify > and distribute. Sure. > I don't have to sacrifice *anything at all* which I had otherwise. If you have a patent which applies to the program, and you want to distribute, you have to grant a license to that patent to all third parties. Ok, if you don't want to modify and distribute, then this doesn't apply to you, but that's another issue. > This copy-to-patentleft sort of licence says I have to refrain from > enforcing the patent rights which I had independent of the work, > or I don't get a copyright license. I'll grant that not enforcing patent rights in the context of that specific work against a few specific parties is not as comprehensive as granting unlimited rights to the patent to all third parties. > That's no good. What's not good? The scenario you seem to propose looks to me like this: A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is patent restricted, and sues A. B wins, and now only B can distribute the software -- A can't [and no one else can] without buying a license from B. You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents this scenario is not good, and that the reason it's not good is that it prevents this scenario. So far, I'm not convinced. -- Raul
