Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > 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.
Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I invite you to quote where you think I've done so. >> 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. Having just read GPL 7 again, to make sure I'm doing this right, I think I can just issue a license to use the patent for a given purpose, and that's enough. I'm not completely certain of that. I'm sure I only have to grant a license to that patent to all parties who receive a copy of the work. I'm further pretty sure that I only have to grant a license to that patent to all parties who receive a copy *from me*. The fact that nobody else can distribute isn't my problem; GPL 7 only applies to me, I don't have to ensure they can meet it too. > 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: First, B files for a patent and publishes an invention. For the sake of argument, say it's something legitimately innovative. > 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. It might be good. It isn't free. If it is free, why isn't the following free: : A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is : on his hard drive, and sues A for that drive. B wins, and now only : B can distribute the software -- A can't [and no one else can] : without getting a license from B. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
