Florian Weimer wrote: > The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright > license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents. Such as not claiming in a lawsuit that the work infringes a patent? :-)
Well, in that case, there are two possibilities: (1) The work doesn't infringe the patent. In this case, you have no right to claim that it does. So it passes the Dictator test. (2) The work does infringe the patent. In this case, the copyright license is nearly useless and grants no meaningful rights to anyone but the patent holder. So it's a non-free license, and we don't have to worry about the Dictator test. So I think such a clause passes the test. (There are probably some details I've missed, but anyway.) I also think any broader clause than that is *not* reasonable and deserves to fail the test. > Such > clauses can be quite reasonable, but they would fail the proposed > test. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
