Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > >> Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free >> software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade, >> not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions >> on the behavior of licensees of allegedly free software? > > I think the benefit to free software is obvious: Someone who uses free > software with the kind of termination clause in OSLv2.1 cannot restrict > its use to himself by making patent infringement claims over it.
... not even if he owns a valid patent to it. >> PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled >> the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a >> patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much. It's >> the cancellation of the license for even seeking impartial justice >> that bothers me. > > Why is the type of the withheld license important? I'm not sure it is, in this example. Well. It's important because this is all part of a crusade against software patents taken too far into a crusade against patents which happen to apply to software. But it's not important for what I want to express. The starred bits are important, and should probably be phrased like this: It think it's free to terminate a public license completely and universally as soon as anybody brings and wins any suit against any party that claims that the work using some patented technology. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]