Andrew Suffield writes: > > By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you > > attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work. > > This is not true, nor does it approximate something which is true.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. Do you believe that attempting to extract any sort of license fee (or other conditions) for a program -- whether based on patent, copyright, trademark, or the vague term "IP" -- is something other than a sublicense as meant by that paragraph? I can imagine that SCO will claim it is different, but I also imagine that argument will fail. I think it should be obvious that asserting patent infringement in a lawsuit is a rather narrower condition than "sublicens[ing]... except as expressly provided under this License." > > > > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is > > > > > non-free. > > > > > > > > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant. > > > > > > Congratulations, you missed the point. > > > > I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it > > productive to make an unsupported insult like that? > > Because it might cause you to think about what I wrote *before* you > reply, rather than replying without comprehension. > > I cannot be the one who missed the point; it was my point. That's just > nuts. Besides setting up a strawman, what WAS your point? I'm not going to try to guess what you want to accomplish by introducing a strawman, and I'm not going to treat it as a serious argument. Michael Poole
