Andrew Suffield writes: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-17 10:05]: > > > The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software > > > without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in > > > which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then > > > they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various > > > licenses that terminate if you do something "wrong" - we've just > > > come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be > > > allowed to do that thing. > > > > > > In the past, we've accepted various compromises on freedom because > > > they help free software. > > > > I agree with this reasoning and think that we should treat at least > > "Any patent action against the licensor connected to the licensed > > work" as free. I'd like to hear more possible scenarios what "Any > > patent action against the licensor" might mean in reality, such as > > Nathanael's IBM example. I think such possible scenarios/examples > > are a good way to think about the implications of these clauses. > > Here's a scenario for you: > > Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in > its license. > > Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes > an extra feature. > > Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by > company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. > > Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the > modified version infringes some of its patents. Company A no longer > has a license to the modified version, which it didn't want anyway, so > it is not concerned about this. > > Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent > portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill > its modified version. Company B has no practical defence against this > lawsuit, so the modified version is killed. They have been effectively > trapped in a double-bind. > > > I just pulled that one out of the air. There are countless more like > it. All you are accomplishing is to permit copyright holders more > control over their software; this cannot be a good thing. Trying to > game the legal system *doesn't work*.
Company B's "defensive" claims also affect all other users of the original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe. Why is Company B's self-defense more important to free software than unrelated users? > This is inevitable from first principles; significant arbitrary > restrictions are non-free. You will always be able to find ways to > abuse them to gain arbitrary degrees of control over the software. One could claim that allowing others to access a program over the network includes sufficient transfer of copyrighted material to trigger section 3 of the GPL. Debian has rejected explicit "external deployment" clauses in the past, but accepts the GPL despite this possibility. I just pulled that one out of the air. There are countless more like it. Making up corner cases is not particularly useful. Michael Poole
