[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That said, what would any of you make of what lawyers call reciprocal > non-assertion pacts? That is, would it be a good thing if Company X let > anyone use its patented, open-source technology on a royalty-free basis > _as long as_ that person or group agreed not to sue Company X for patent > infringement?
This type of broad non-assert clause is popping up more and more often in (proposed) open source licenses. The new Apache Software License (http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/) also has such a clause (section 5). In a message from its general counsel, the FSF noted that this clause is incompatible with the GPL and is not "appropriate" for free software licenses: For this and other reasons, FSF believes that broad automatic termination provisions like that contained in the first sentence of section 5 are fraught with potentially serious unintended consequences, and are not an appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation. We would urge that the first sentence of section 5 be removed. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1127301 Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
