Steve Langasek wrote: > 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. That's correct, and thanks for realizing that; I suggested that it's acceptable to terminate their license to the program, but that does not terminate their rights to *use* the program, only to copy, modify, and distribute it. >>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. Heh. :) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature