On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 18:59, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:12:44PM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause > > is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in > > exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent infringment. > > Note that this isn't a license to the licensee's patents. This just > > basically says that we can revoke our patent grants if the licensee > > chooses to take legal action against us. > > That may be what you meant to say, but it's not what the license > actually says. What it currently says is: > > If you initiate a lawsuit against anybody that stipulates this program > infringes any patent, then you immediately lose all rights to modify > and distribute the software (would be "use" as well, except that > absent idiotic DMCA-like laws, that can't be restricted). > > Which is quite gratuitous.
This is very simple. We're not going to let someone mooch our intellectual property and then sue us (or those that are part of our community) over alleged infringement of theirs. Or rather, they can sue us, but they can't continue to expect a free license to our IP. I really don't see what's so gratuitous about this. This says nothing about limiting their capacity to extract monetary damages. They can even negotiate a separate license with RealNetworks. They just lose the stock license at that point. Rob -- Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org Development Support: http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
