On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:50:54PM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> So:
>
> 10. Termination
>
>     Your license grants under section 1 are automatically terminated if
>     You
> ...
>     b) initiate a patent infringement litigation claim (excluding
>        declaratory judgment actions, counterclaims, and cross-claims)
>        alleging that any work under this License directly or indirectly
>        infringes any patent.
>
> In other words, if you sue someone over a patent in a copyleft-nexted
> work, you lose rights to use all copyleft-nexted works. 

The language you propose doesn't have the effect you describe nor do I think you can accomplish it at all. Licenses are personal, so "this License" would be interpreted as this instance of the copyleft-next license for this software (or author's contribution), not all software anywhere licensed under copyleft-next.  In theory you could cure that defect with some redrafting, but I'm not sure there's a way to accomplish what you'd like with a license. I can't say "if you breach my license you don't get to use Bob's work" because there is no privity between Bob and me so I have no legal right to dictate what happens to Bob's work.  Perhaps somehow you could craft some language that essentially requires that all the Bobs in the world who use copyleft-next agree that they will act in concert, but even if you get past that significant drafting hurdle (Richard?), query whether you're getting into antitrust problems by creating a group boycott.

Pam