MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is > >> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other > >> software. [...] > > > > It only terminates a patent license, not a copyright license. That > > just makes the license effectively mute about patents (which is true > > of most licenses we look at). Patents were also discussed for an > > Intel license [1]. > > This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in > a position of strength if software patents are involved.
Hmm. I guess I read license a little too quickly. What is rather amusing is that IBM has now lost all of its patent rights anyone else may have given them, since they counter-sued SCO over some patent rights. This probably qualifies as a bug in the license even for IBM, and they might be convinced to change the license. Someone should talk to them. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]