MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2003-11-14 02:21:18 +0000 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, you have precedent against you. The IBM Common Public > > License has just such a clause > > It seems that this particular aspect (actions unrelated to the work > affecting the right to use the work) was not covered in previous > discussions at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00213.html > > Maybe only revoking grants "under this License" was considered the > saving grace? Can anyone give a reference with that conclusion? I > can't find it. The other possibility is that people misread "this > software" in place of "software". Are licences which discriminate > against people engaged in unrelated legal action against you > DFSG-free? (I am looking at 5 and 9.)
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license. Since Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with patents that are being enforced, it was considered fine [1]. There was even a comment praising the patent stuff [2]. Basically, if there was a patent being enforced then Debian might start worrying about these clauses. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00218.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199905/msg00132.html
