Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
If it did that, I don't think there'd be any real argument. Sadly, it terminates the copyright license as well. If it merely terminated the patent license I don't think we'd have any trouble with it. It would also strengthen your legal case (if the copyright termination would make any difference to them, then they must be using the software. If they no longer have a patent license to do so, you can nail them for rather more breaches than you previously could) if somebody does sue you over patents. In its current form, I think there'd be few people who would accept the RPSL as DFSG-free. If you terminated patent grants rather than the copyright license, I think there'd be a sizable proportion of developers who would accept it as DFSG-free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
