[copyleft-next] copyleft-next patent commons?

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Fri Feb 22 20:20:23 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:02:59PM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at 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.

That's a good point. I've been aiming for at least conceptual
precision in what "this License" means, for reasons unrelated to this
proposal. It's not so much that licenses are personal, but rather that
I want it to be clear that "this License" cannot mean "the
copyleft-next universe in general" because otherwise it will lead to
arguments about overbroad interpretations of several of the license
provisions. A related issue has come up in the GPL context in the past.

>  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.

Right, I think I may have not looked at this closely enough when first
reading Gerv's message. 

Maybe there's some other way of achieving the goal here, but this way
doesn't seem viable. 

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.

 - RF




More information about the copyleft-next mailing list