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. > 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? If you are the patent holder, you would not have a copyright license on the software that infringes your patent. If you are anyone else, you would not have a patent license on the software. It would not be legal for anyone to distribute (or use, except perhaps for the patent holder) the software after a successful patent claim -- unless the patent holder granted a free license. Before Debian considers software free, we require proper licenses for actively enforced patents; any claim of infringement would make the software non-DFSG, even before a lawsuit is resolved. Michael Poole
