- From: Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz>
- Date: 01 Oct 2001 20:08:46 +1200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: moglen@columbia.edu
Hi all, I'm sure Professor Eben Moglen will be on top of this. However I'll just bring this to everyone's attention: Remember the issues with the Python license not being GPL compatible? It turned out it wasn't compatible because it specificied choice of law. http://www.python.org/2.1/fsf.html "So we have never allowed a license with a choice-of-law clause to be treated as fully compatible with GPL. Virginia is the worst of all choices, because that state has passed the UCITA law, which adds a whole new range of risks and burdens in the distribution of free software." Well the W3C RF license has a choice-of-law term: http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/#def-RF A "Royalty-Free License" also called "RF License" shall have the same characteristics as a RAND License, except that a Royalty-Free License: 1. may not be conditioned on payment of royalties, fees or other consideration except for the conditions permitted in the clauses of RAND License other than clause 5. So what are those other conditions? 6.may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on the use of any technology, intellectual property rights, or other restrictions on behavior of the licensee, but may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the following: audit (when relevant to fees), choice of law, and dispute resolution. See? A choice of law clause! Anyway, food for thought. Regards, Adam
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:09:04 UTC