On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> wrote:

As for the goal ... I didn't say this in my earlier response, but I'm
personally skeptical about the introduction of ambitious
anti-software-patent provisions. Not that it isn't good to propose and
consider such things, we definitely should as we are doing here, just
giving my personal take or bias. One of the first things I did with
the GPLv3 text when starting this project was get rid of almost every
patent-related provision -- except for the patent license grant itself
(which I believe I've improved significantly through radical
restructuring of the license itself). I believe that ambitious
anti-software-patent provisions in FLOSS licenses, provisions designed
to realistically shape corporate behavior or else just make a
political statement, are the product of a now-very-bygone era. But
maybe I'm wrong.

Somewhat off-thread, on patents though: looking at the provision, I wonder if we can invoke the termination sooner than the "initiation" of a patent infringement suit. Much more harm is caused by the threat, preventing people from adopting software because there is a known threat.  So how about instead of "initiate" is it "allege or threaten"?

Pam