Re: AROS License DFSG ok?

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Gürkan Sengün <gurkan@linuks.mine.nu> writes:

> Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
>
> http://www.aros.org/license.html

Likely problems:

>      8.2.  If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent
>      infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions)
>      against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial
>      Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is
>      referred to as "Participant") alleging that:
>
>      (a) such Participant's Contributor Version directly or
>      indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights
>      granted by such Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or
>      2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant
>      terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt
>      of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a
>      mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future
>      use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw
>      Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version
>      against such Participant.  If within 60 days of notice, a
>      reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually
>      agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim
>      is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You
>      under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 automatically terminate at the
>      expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above.

Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
DFSG.

>      (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such
>      Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly
>      infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such
>      Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked
>      effective as of the date You first made, used, sold,
>      distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that
>      Participant.

I read this as meaning that a lawsuit claiming any patent infringement
by a Participant not related to the software terminates the patentee's
license, which seems unreasonable.

The relationship of 8.2(a) and 8.2(b) is ambiguous; it seems to only
make sense if you assume the appropriate conjunction is "or," but it
would be good to get a clarification.

Michael Poole