Kragen Sitaker: > I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in > working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a > well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears > to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified > versions will get sued in the following case: > > IBM releases OpenDX. > Party A adds features they own patents on to OpenDX, releasing OpenDX'. > Party B adds more features to OpenDX', doesn't touch party A's code or > add more code that infringes Party A's patents, and releases OpenDX''.
Agree - every vendor is responsible for getting proper licenses for the software they distibute. > So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed > under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in > DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed > (by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of the DFSG. Worse, IBM could > obtain the patent five or six years after people begin using the > software; it seems to me that this puts people in the same danger of > termination that the old Jikes license did, although to a lesser degree. Agree - but this (something becoming subject to licensing) can already happen with any piece of software. Thanks for the input. Wietse