MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> MJ Ray wrote: >> >>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the cases >>> above, terminate? >> >> This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from all >> of the software's contributors not to sue you over patents terminates. > > I already wrote I'm only considering the patent licence, so let's drop > the wording defence. We agree that the patent licence terminates. > Therefore, the patent licence is non-free.
We agree that the patent license terminates, but I don't agree that the conditions for termination make the license non-free. Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the software." As for the possibility that the licensor sues you and you want to counter-sue using a software patent, consider that without the patent license termination clause, you could sue the licensor over a software patent and they couldn't use their patents to defend themselves. The only useful purpose for patents in Free Software is to keep from being sued by other patent holders. Finally, I think the GPL would have the same effect with respect to software patents. If you use a software patent to sue about a piece of GPLed software, you are attempting to take away the right to use/copy/modify/distribute that software under the conditions of the GPL. Since this would mean only people who have a patent license from you can use/copy/modify/distribute the software, you cannot satisfy the terms of the GPL (which require you to grant that right to everyone who has a copy), so you lose the right to distribute the software under GPL clause 7. >> A license that gives no indication about patents at all would give you >> fewer rights than this license > > Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no > patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then > having no patent licence => non-free. No. If there are patents covering it, and those patents are valid, and those patents are actively being enforced, and there is no patent license, then the software should go in non-free. Otherwise, it can go in main unless those conditions change. Most of the software in Debian is probably covered by various patents, most of them ranging from invalid to ridiculous. In general, we don't actively search out patents that affect software, because it would consume all the time of every developer in Debian, and because patent liability increases if you knowingly infringe a patent. I believe we should apply the same procedure here. > Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in order > to use their software has such patents? If not, why don't they declare > that instead of licensing a nothing to us? Legalistic licensors covering all their bases, or companies that hold so many patents that it would be difficult to search them all to determine what to license. - Josh Triplett