On 2013-02-23 03:02, Pamela Chestek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org <mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:50:54PM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> So:
>
> 10. Termination
>
> Your license grants under section 1 are automatically
terminated if
> You
> ...
> b) initiate a patent infringement litigation claim (excluding
> declaratory judgment actions, counterclaims, and cross-claims)
> alleging that any work under this License directly or
indirectly
> infringes any patent.
>
> In other words, if you sue someone over a patent in a copyleft-nexted
> work, you lose rights to use all copyleft-nexted works.
The language you propose doesn't have the effect you describe nor do I
think you can accomplish it at all. Licenses are personal, so "this
License" would be interpreted as this instance of the copyleft-next
license for this software (or author's contribution), not all software
anywhere licensed under copyleft-next. In theory you could cure that
defect with some redrafting, but I'm not sure there's a way to
accomplish what you'd like with a license. I can't say "if you breach my
license you don't get to use Bob's work" because there is no privity
between Bob and me so I have no legal right to dictate what happens to
Bob's work.
But that's not what the text is saying. It is saying "if you breach
Bob's license you don't get to use my work". If "This License" is
ambiguous, wouldn't "works under a copyleft-next license" or similar be
a reasonable term to classify those works that "I" would defend by
terminating the license to this work?
--
/c