Joe Schaefer wrote:
Agreed in concept. That's what I was trying to accomplish with this proposed revision to Section 5 (which also corresponds to the defensive termination language in the proposed CLAs):"Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
For any "us" that does not own a patent that applies to software
licensed under the Apache license, section 5 provides no benefit
whatsoever. The benefit provided by section 5 is a benefit that only
applies to patent owners: if you don't have a patent (in particular, if
you don't have a patent that applies to the Apache-licensed software),
then you aren't granting any license that is terminated by section 5;
section 5 gives you neither leverage nor other benefit.
Perhaps section 5 could be reworked around the idea that "ALL patent rights granted by this license will be revoked should ANY patent infringement claim be made against ANY portion of this Work".
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without modification (other than modifications that are Contribution(s)), constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Contribution or such Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Patent infringement litigation involving a Contribution (a portion of the Work) or the Work itself would thus result in the termination of any patent licenses granted under the v.2.0 license.
