[copyleft-next] copyleft-next patent commons?

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Feb 25 13:43:37 UTC 2013


On 22/02/13 19:50, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> The obvious way to deal with relicensing is to expand "this License" in
> 
>>     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.
> 
> to include any license this license may be relicensed as (so any GPL
> work),

I expect that would fall foul of the GPL's "no further restrictions" clause.

> hurdles to join. To extent copyleft-next successfully implements idea
> and is adopted, or other free software licenses copy implementation,
> free software developers would gain some incremental protection, at
> least a bit more than they're getting now with effective "pool"
> limited to particular works.

We might want to allow other licenses to join the same "protection
pool", perhaps by giving the pool a name that could be referenced.

> Still, I like it. Heck, I like MPL 1.1's approach, which I did not
> fully understand before. Has MPL 1.1 termination ever actually come up
> in patent litigation?

Not to my knowledge, but my knowledge is far from complete.

Gerv



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list