Michael Poole wrote: >The important difference is who restricts distribution of the >purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims >to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not >allow the author to terminate the license unilaterally. On the other >hand, I think it is contrary to free software's philosophy and goals >to require the author to defend or indemnify anyone else's use or >distribution of the software if a third party raises patent claims.
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the other acceptable? The user is equally screwed either way. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
