>Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Is the AROS license DFSG ok? >> >> http://www.aros.org/license.html
Michael Poole wrote: >Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the >DFSG. Clause 8.2a terminates rights to the Contributor Version if you allege in a lawsuit that the Contributor Version violates a patent. Most of us think this is OK... (If that's all it does, of course.) However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that *anything* infringes any patent. As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be over Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore. So the license is definitely not DFSG-free. The clauses in 3.4 may also be problematic, but I haven't looked at the license too closely. 6.2 is an undesirable clause, though not DFSG-free.
