On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > 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.
I'd be inclined to say that a piece of software which is
patent-encumbered *by the author* is seriously non-free. Especially, but
not only, if the patent holder starts sueing people over it.
Therefore, your scenario is invalid. Have another one?
I cannot think of any situation where a software author, who holds no
patents (and has no interest in getting any), is doing a bad thing to
Free Software as a whole just because he's including a patent defense
clause in his license. If you can, I'd be happy to learn more.
[...]
> This is inevitable from first principles; significant arbitrary
> restrictions are non-free.
Indeed, so all patents are non-free. Therefore, I think patent defense
clauses are a good thing, if worded carefully and not accompanied by
patents themselves.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
