On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > >> Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer > > >> using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he > > >> holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his > > >> rights to do anything with the code?
Personally, I don't really find the "prevents legitimate offensive patent use" argument too convincing. In practice, software patents are so broken that I don't really care if a license prevents "legitimate defending of a patent", at least on the offensive side. I do tend to sympathize with defensive patents, if only because it's the only defense most companies have against offensive patents. So, I feel there may be something wrong with a license that says "if we sue you, and you sue us back, you lose your license to this software". > GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the > tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any > different? I don't typically lose my license under the GPL due to actions taken that have nothing at all to do with the work. -- Glenn Maynard