On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > However, if he distributed under a non-patent-defense license, it would > *still* be non-free. So I'm not clear on how the so-called patent-defence > clause makes any difference here.
It wouldn't be: > Right.... but if the patent-defence clause is absent, then either: > (1) GIFEnc is still free, because GIFCorp's patents will be defeated > (In which case what's the need for the countersuit?) > > Or (2) GIFEnc isn't free We're back at "do held patents make software non-free?" issue again: we don't consider a work non-free simply because patents which can be enforced against it exist, unless they're actually being enforced. This fact does make the issue murky and much harder to figure out. > So what difference does the patent-defence clause make? It's essentially applying the "don't allege patent violation for use of this software" part of the anti-patent clause to the copyright holder, as well, by a different means (a license grant). It's usually much cheaper, by my understanding, to countersue and settle a patent suit than to defend against the patent in court--even if you know you'll win because the patent is bogus. I don't think it's free to require that others give up their ability to countersue (eg. to take the above course of action) unless you guarantee that you won't make it necessary--this is true even if you don't hold any relevant patents, or if your patents wouldn't actually stand up in court. -- Glenn Maynard
