On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:01:15AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit > claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits > all right to the original work and any derivative. Alice and Bob each > use each other's software extensively, though they don't actually like > each other much at all. > > Now Charlie comes along and derives a new work from Alice's and Bob's > software. He violates the copyleft. They'd each like to sue him for > copyright infringement, but if either one sues to defend his property > rights, he loses his rights to the other's software. Is this free?
This isn't claiming that the works of Alice or Bob are infringing copyright; it's claiming that Charlie is infringing copyright. Neither Alice nor Bob face license termination for each other's work for suing Charlie over Charlie's use of those works; they'd only lose the license to Charlie's derivative work. Or at least they shouldn't, if this type of license is implemented properly. Take a simpler case. Alice writes a program. Bill contributes somewhat to it--enough to have a copyright claim. John takes the result, and violates the license. Bill sues John for violating his part of the copyright. Does Bill lose his license to Alice's work? No; he's not saying that Alice's work is in violation, he's saying that John is in violation (through his act of distributing without eg. offering source). I'm a little mixed up, though: I'd expect that an action, not a work, violates a copyright or patent license--by copying in a way that isn't allowed, etc.--whereas the work itself infringes on a patent if there's no license at all. I'm not sure, though, and I'm getting confused just thinking about it ... > I don't think it is, though I'm not so sure of myself to think that > reasonable people can't disagree. > > But the patent case seems very similar: A and B each develop some > software and distribute it under a copyleft with an attached patent > license with a termination clause for any suit against the licensor or > any licensee claiming patent infringement in the associated code. > They each use the other's software and patented techniques. > > C then distributes an illicit derived work, in such a way that he does > not violate the copyright license but does violate the patent > license. Neither A nor B can sue him without losing their rights to > the other's software. So if the copyright version is non-free, this > is non-free, right? I don't agree with the copyright example, so this becomes mostly irrelevant, but anyway: I like generality, but I don't think I'd generalize here. I consider software copyright enforcement to be legitimate, and potentially beneficial. I do not consider any kind of software patent enforcement to be beneficial, neither to free software nor anything else. If C is violating patents and not copyrights, then I really don't care if it's made harder for A and B to sue him over it. I simply don't consider "right to use software patents" to be legitimate or worth protecting. Software patents have no redeeming value. -- Glenn Maynard