On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote: > Steve, > If I follow you correctly > A - writes program #49 and licenced under > GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence > B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made > enhancement/change) > C - determines their patent is infringed by program #49 and launches > legal action (presumably against A, B, & D) > E - may have patents infringed by program #49, but is otherwise > uninvolved & takes no action > F - determines their patent is infringed by program #49 and launches > legal action (presumably against A, B, & D) > We know that no option is available to use the licence to defend against > F, unless we use the unacceptable path of cross-contamination, etc. (ie > any software patent defence terminates all software licences with patent > defence clause) > Josh wants C to lose their licence to use program #49 as a result of > legal action as a mechanism to defend A, B & D's rights to develop, > distribute & use program #49. I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. So in your example, any copyright license restrictions you impose are no more or less effective than a patent license that terminates in response to a patent suit. > You want C to lose any patent licences granted for program #49. How does > that help defend program #49 and hedge software patents? When did I say that it did? The proper way to defend the program against party C is by shooting him, obviously; but that's out of scope for copyright licenses. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature