Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Nick Phillips
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is consistent with the goal of upholding the freedoms of users over that software. As

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Matthew Garrett
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, many software licenses choose to go further than that, requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether those lawsuits are related to the software or not.

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
Steve Langasek wrote: I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...] That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...] That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Adeodato Simó
[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I need big amounts of cluebat with this...] * OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]: Steve Langasek wrote: Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Josh Triplett
Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote: Steve, If I follow you correctly A - writes program #49 and licenced under GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made enhancement/change) C - determines

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Adeodato Simó [Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:10:39 +0100]: So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless ^ uhm, that's probably wrong, then? (After

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-25 Thread Nick Phillips
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:57:21AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Start with something uncontroversial and then build to: [...] In the light of the threat that software patents pose to Free Software, we believe that it is likewise acceptable for software licenses to place