[copyleft-next] Termination strictness and patent poison pills

On a CHR😩-governed mailing list, there is a thread regarding Termination provisions in GPLv3. One of the points I've made on that thread there is that, frankly, the industry obsession with extending termination provisions as if its a panacea reflects the dueal widespread misunderstandings that (a) most copyleft violations are due to innocent mistakes that companies want to repair and (b) that so-called “copyright trolls” are common for copylefted works (when they are, in fact, exceedingly rare). This may be neither here nor there, but it lead me to look again at what the Termination provision of copyleft-next. I see that it hasn't changed much since the original 2012 drafts. Most notably, I see it still contains a patent infringement litigation poison pill: Upon reading this, I wonder if this is really necessary? I remember when I first read it back in 2012, I thought “oh, great use of a patent poison pill”, but now I'm dubious. The reason I'm now dubious about it is that patents are even more weaponized and more consolidated than they were previously. Frankly, I'm am just *not* sympathetic to a litigation between two patent holders, which is the most likely use of this clause. Specifically, it's a case like this: Company Foo sues Company Bar for patent infringement. Company Bar exercises this clause, terminates rights, and then immediately sues a counterclaim. Foo has no rights under copyleft-next, but Bar retains their rights. But what about declaratory judgment lawsuits? What about situations where Bar was actually the patent aggressor out-of-court and Foo preemptively acted? (I was recently reading that something like this happened in the real world.) So, in summary, I think a smart patent aggressor can manipulate the situation and find themselves being the one in the cross-claim/counterclaim situation. So, upon consideration, I think we should cut the patent poison pill entirely. This has the upside of making the license shorter by 3 lines / 180 chars / 25 words. Can we discuss? -- Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/