Hi Bradley,
On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 12:40:46 -0700 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> b. Initiate a patent infringement litigation claim (excluding
> counterclaims and cross-claims) alleging that all or part of My
> Work directly or indirectly infringes a patent.
[...]
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?
What about just removing the exception "(excluding counterclaims and
cross-claims)" ?
I mean: if I understand correctly, to start a counterclaim, you need to
have a software patent to begin with, which is not something Free
Software people usually like or do.
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).
I totally agree, but it's not a misunderstanding: they know very well
all of this, but they pretend these innocent unicorns exists to support
the actual bad practices real companies do with free software all the
time.
To me, copylefts' should never have termination provisions.
Innocent mistakes promptly fixed won't reach a court that effectively
extablish the termination anyway, but if you don't promptly fix your
copyright violation you should have no escape imho.
Giacomo