<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/7/19 7:18 PM, bruce at perens.com
(Bruce Perens) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOuQ3KdrgijvRGh5wTF-w2bgbUUti0MFnKGyU-di8nuBRA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Fri, Dec 6, 2019, 9:33 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">But as has been pointed out by several people, the scenario you describe
could happen with any license.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The difference in this case is that a fundamental feature of the network
breaks if you allow interoperable software under another Open Source
license on the network. Because that network node operator is not bound by
any anti-sequestration terms. So as far as I can tell, you have to assert
your patents, you can't tolerate having that operator continue.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I must note two things:</p>
<p> 1) This, THIS, is exactly why we decided long ago to ignore
software patents. Indeed:</p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.E8434F65.EFD73A72@crynwr.com" alt="The Open
Source Definition (Annotated) .... [search box containing
"patent 0/0"]" width="1451" height="80"></p>
<p> 2) We have never judged open source licenses based on their
ability to achieve their author's goals. The FDA (US medication
licensing bureau) has gone down the wrong route by requiring that
a medicine be effective. A new medication has to go through
billions of dollars of testing, all of which have to be paid-for
by people who partake of these medicines. Consequently, medicines
that may be life-saving take years and are expensive. The process
doesn't work very well. Some medicines thought to be safe
(Tylenol) turn out to destroy your liver with an overdose of
merely 3X. Some medicines thought to be useful are harmful
(statins) for all women and most men with no history of heart
attacks. And don't get me started on sugar, which shouldn't even
be legal to put in foods. No. They should just require that a
medicine have a documented set of side-effects.</p>
<p>Similarly, we don't judge whether a license is going to "work".
We just say whether a license is open source.</p>
<p>In this case, the CALb4 is a well-written (nod to Van) license
which is[1] compliant with the Open Source Definition. I haven't
read every email in December and January, but from what I've seen,
the objections seems to be of the form of whether two or three
angels can dance on the head of a pin, when it's merely necessary
to show that a pin head is angel-compatible.<br>
</p>
[1] Okay, so maybe it's not obvious to everyone, but some of us have
read every open source license multiple times, and helped to write
the current OSD.
</body>
</html>