[copyleft-next] copyleft-next patent commons?

"Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)" clacke+gmail at lysator.liu.se
Sat Feb 23 04:05:02 UTC 2013


On 2013-02-23 03:02, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Richard Fontana
> <fontana at sharpeleven.org <mailto: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.  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.

But that's not what the text is saying. It is saying "if you breach 
Bob's license you don't get to use my work". If "This License" is 
ambiguous, wouldn't "works under a copyleft-next license" or similar be 
a reasonable term to classify those works that "I" would defend by 
terminating the license to this work?

-- 
    /c


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list