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.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.] On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:48:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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. And this is true regardless of the license. No license should be considered non-free for an issue which makes the software non-free regardless of the license. > > 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. Which costs money. [Unless you are your own lawyer -- but then it still costs time, and probably still costs you money, just not as much.] If this specific basis [legal matter foo should be left to the courts] makes a license non-free, you could just as well claim that no warranty clauses make a license non-free, and that no warranty clauses make a license non free. -- Raul
