Andrew Suffield writes: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the > > author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the > > software. I am not sure why some people think the latter is > > objectionable, since it is similar in spirit and effect to the GPL's > > termination case > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like).
This is not true, and it does not approximate anything that is true. > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright > holder. Under this line of argument, the GPL is non-free because it gives the copyright holder a promise that the licensee will redistribute the work (in original or modified form) in source code to anyone the licensee gives a copy to. Michael Poole