Plan 9 license

[Mark Shewmaker]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:43:08PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> 
> The right of Bell Labs to demand private
> source is also unacceptable.

A bit off-topic here, but I'm wondering if your objection would extend
to similar requirements with respect to patents.

If someone is not required to distribute internally-modified Open
Source code, well, it may at times be inconvenient for someone else to
implement similar functionality, but it's not likely to be impossible.

However, if that someone also incorporates their own patents into the
Open Source code, it can easily become impossible for someone else to
implement similar functionality, and that bothers me--Especially if
that first someone is taking advantage of another's patent license and
isn't returning the favor.

This is an issue I want the Open Patent License to address.

I do not want the Open Patent License to require that
internally-modified source code be shared, (although I would want to
require that none of the parties be restricted from sharing Open
Source code for which they have have a patent license due to the OPL's
Pool F), but I do want it to require that the patents be shared:  If
someone is using Open Source code that incorporates (OPL'd) patents, I
would prefer that the OPL not allow them to prevent reimplementation
of their additions.  (The license also addresses other forms of IP
that similarly prevents reimplementation of works, by the way, such
as look&feel copyrights, reverse-engineering restrictions, etc.)

Does anyone have any objections in principle to this sort of demand
for patent licenses associated with privately-modified source?

 -Mark Shewmaker
  mark at primefactor.com