Simple Public License, Please Review

[Justin Wells]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 02:49:16PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of
> > our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation,
> > or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution
> > of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the
> > rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority
> > to pursue such actions.
> 
> It sounds as if you're attempting to assign the right to prosecute an
> infringement of a right that the prosecuting party doesn't own. It's
> so much of a doublethink that I doubt any court would accept it.

But I *do* think that users of copylefted software have a stake in 
the copyleft. You might choose to use some copyleft software as 
opposed to some other solution precisely because you know that 
you will be able to benefit from any improvement anyone makes 
in the software. You might see that as being of real value to you,
even though you are not the developer of the software. 

Also, although you may not be a developer you may have actively helped
out with the software: incurred costs of distributing it, submitted 
lots of bug reports, and posted useful suggestions on the mailing list. 

So, since I think users have some interest in the copyleft I think they
ought to be able to step into court and defend that interest. 

My idea is that if Debian is distributing some free software, and some
corporation violates the license, Debian ought to be able to do something
about it even though they didn't write the software. Ditto for Red Hat, 
the Free Software Foundation, and anyone else who has some interest in
the copyleft of that particular bit of software.

However you're right, I will definately need an attorney to look over
this clause :-) 

Justin