Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

[Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>]

[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding
the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I
need big amounts of cluebat with this...]

* OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]:
> Steve Langasek wrote:

> >Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints where I am with this:
> >terminating patent licenses in response to patent claims is fine, requiring
> >distributors to allow royalty-free distribution if they're going to engage
> >in distribution at all (as in the GPL) is fine, but terminating copyright
> >licenses in response to defense of one's patent rights is not ok.

> 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.

> You want C to lose any patent licences granted for program #49. How does 
> that help defend program #49 and hedge software patents?

  If I understood correctly, C sues A over "patent infringed by program
  #49", so if falls in the first group described by Josh, and so it
  would be fine that program #49's license terminates C's rights under
  this circumstances. (First group on Josh's mail, as I said.)

  Now imagine, to describe the second group:

    - D, to whom B provided a copy of p#49, sues A over a patent
      infringement NOT related to p#49 at all. As per Matthew Garrett's
      post, license may be of two kinds, each of them mandating that:

        (a) D's license to use any program written by A and licensed
            under License LA (or equivalent) terminates completely.

        (b) D's patent licenses, for patents holded by A and applicable
            not only in p#49, but in every program written by A and
            licensed under License LB (or equivalent), terminate.

  As Matthew said, (a) is not acceptable, and (b) may be ("people were
  more or less happy with [it]").

  So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in
  (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless
  D purchases the relevant patent licenses? (Or perhaps the "can't use
  ..." should read "risks being sued by A over patent infringement").

  And: if D immediately stops using p#49 and the rest of affected
  programs, may A sue D too?

  Thanks,

-- 
Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.