On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:04:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > ... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
> > > > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
> > > > infringes a patent.
> > > >
> > > > Please not "or any licensee". This clause is not giving the licensee
> > > > special treatment.
> > >
> > > Right, it's giving the copyright holder special treatment. That's my
> > > point.
> >
> > Thinko due to neighboring words; s/licensee/licensor/. (I suppose I
> > should just use "copyright holder" and "user".) It's not giving the
> > copyright holder special treatment at all; it very explicitly and
> > deliberately treats the copyright holder and users equally.
>
> You've been tricked by lawyers. This clause says that only the
> copyright holder may file patent lawsuits.
... alleging that the Original Work infringes a patent, you mean.
The original copyright holder will have a hard time making such a
claim, since the license itself grants a patent license for his patents
("Grant of Patent License").
Now, there's a practical issue: the copyright holder may change, so
the copyright holder isn't the original licensor--if I buy the copyright
for the work, the existing licensees aren't going to suddenly get a
license to *my* patents, as well. (I don't presently agree with the
arguments that these clauses are fundamentally non-free in principle,
but I'm tending to think that this practical issue--which I've mentioned
before[1]--may be fatal.)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00260.html
--
Glenn Maynard
