Doesn't protect DJB [LWN.net]

Doesn't protect DJB

Posted Nov 30, 2007 18:20 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)
Parent article: qmail released into the public domain

Public domain won't give DJB any protection from malicious patent holders. The author of JRMI is feeling the pain from using the Artistic license. He had a manufacturer use his software in a product and sue him for patent infringement. Classic example of what Free Software developers don't want to happen. He's not doing well in court because his license was read by the judge as a broad permission rather than a license at all. He would have been in better shape with a license that protected him from patent aggression by people who redistribute his code.

Bruce

(Log in to post comments)

Doesn't protect DJB

Posted Nov 30, 2007 19:15 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

From DJB's history, I suspect he would enjoy the fight.

Doesn't protect DJB

Posted Nov 30, 2007 19:47 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

DJB and Phil Zimmerman's crypto cases were early ones, and they had lots of room to make case law invalidating legislation. In contrast, DJB would hardly be the first party to be sued for infringing a software patent, the precedents he could use to invalidate the law are already tried and gone.

Bruce

Doesn't protect DJB

Posted Dec 1, 2007 19:12 UTC (Sat) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648) [Link]

I'm interested in this case, so I'd like to know where you're getting your information.  Is it
all off of JMRI's website?  The judge's ruling did state that JMRI might have a case for
breach of contract, but the finding that a "nonexclusive license implicitly includes a promise
not to sue for copyright infringement" is certainly unsettling.  I see that JMRI has
relicensed their code under GPLv2.  Perhaps a GPLv3.1 explicitly stating that no promise to
not sue for copyright infringement is implied by the license would be a good idea?

Doesn't protect DJB

Posted Dec 2, 2007 2:24 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

I've had a few short email conversations with the JRMI author, but mainly I'm going by press coverage of the case. I'm sure Eben Moglen read this finding. If it gets to an appeals court and passes there, it will have some precedential value. Right now it doesn't have that much.

Thanks

Bruce