[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I need big amounts of cluebat with this...]
* OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints where I am with this: > >terminating patent licenses in response to patent claims is fine, requiring > >distributors to allow royalty-free distribution if they're going to engage > >in distribution at all (as in the GPL) is fine, but terminating copyright > >licenses in response to defense of one's patent rights is not ok. > Steve, > If I follow you correctly > A - writes program #49 and licenced under > GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence > B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made > enhancement/change) > C - determines their patent is infringed by program #49 and launches > legal action (presumably against A, B, & D) > E - may have patents infringed by program #49, but is otherwise > uninvolved & takes no action > F - determines their patent is infringed by program #49 and launches > legal action (presumably against A, B, & D) > We know that no option is available to use the licence to defend against > F, unless we use the unacceptable path of cross-contamination, etc. (ie > any software patent defence terminates all software licences with patent > defence clause) > Josh wants C to lose their licence to use program #49 as a result of > legal action as a mechanism to defend A, B & D's rights to develop, > distribute & use program #49. > You want C to lose any patent licences granted for program #49. How does > that help defend program #49 and hedge software patents? If I understood correctly, C sues A over "patent infringed by program #49", so if falls in the first group described by Josh, and so it would be fine that program #49's license terminates C's rights under this circumstances. (First group on Josh's mail, as I said.) Now imagine, to describe the second group: - D, to whom B provided a copy of p#49, sues A over a patent infringement NOT related to p#49 at all. As per Matthew Garrett's post, license may be of two kinds, each of them mandating that: (a) D's license to use any program written by A and licensed under License LA (or equivalent) terminates completely. (b) D's patent licenses, for patents holded by A and applicable not only in p#49, but in every program written by A and licensed under License LB (or equivalent), terminate. As Matthew said, (a) is not acceptable, and (b) may be ("people were more or less happy with [it]"). So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless D purchases the relevant patent licenses? (Or perhaps the "can't use ..." should read "risks being sued by A over patent infringement"). And: if D immediately stops using p#49 and the rest of affected programs, may A sue D too? Thanks, -- Adeodato Sim� EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]