Fontana,
Note that I quoted the most recent patent retaliation provision, and you
requoted it as if it had changed but it was the same as the one you quoted; I
just quoted the most relevant text instead of the Termination provision.
Richard Fontana wrote:
For certain corporate types, I think there's a view that this is
fair given
that a patent license grant is being given.
I don't think there is any reason a FOSS license should be “fair” to
patent-holding entities. I agree with your argument this is a cargo cult.
The only “pro” argument you're making here that is this idea …
There might be an argument that eliminating a patent termination
clause
will discourage patent-holding companies from adopting the license.
… but OTOH GPLv2 and GPLv3 are both widely adopted and don't have a
retaliation clause like this one.
But trolls in that sense are (from what I have seen) the main
practical
patent-related problem for FOSS, and they are mostly immune to license
provisions of this sort.
Indeed, these clauses will only actually *matter* when two practicing
entities are involved, and they both have to be practicing *both* some claims
of each others patents *and* doing things with the specific copylefted
software *and* that software has to have code that exercises the relevant
claims.
This comes up so rarely, and when it does, I think the right copyleft policy
is to argue that both sides have a license of each's other patents, and it
doesn't matter who started the Court fight.
Again, I make the case: the fight never starts in Court to begin with, and
the starter of the Court fight could be the “victim” from the fight outside
of Court.
In short, your response gives a lot of useful and interesting FOSS history,
but I feel like on balance your response makes the case that this retaliation
clause isn't worth keeping. What's your case *for* keeping it, if any?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/