> If IBM decides to sue someone else on the ground that a Contribution
> constitutes patent infringement, then under the proposed language IBM
> would in fact lose any patent license granted under this License to that
> Contribution. In the facts you provide, it would appear that the
> infringing party would not have an enforceable patent to the code, but
> to the extent they did, the related patent license grant would
> terminate.
So if the plaintiff's claim is only against a contribution, not the WORK,
the only patent license grant(s) lost would be related to the specific
contribution in question, not those provided with the WORK as a whole? My
understanding was that all patent license grants associated with the WORK
were lost. That also seemed to be underlying the concern from the FSF,
although I might be misunderstanding, or perhaps I need to re-read your
modifications.
> If the basis for IBM's suit were that the Contribution in
> combination with the Work or the Work itself constituted patent
> infringement, then IBM would lose any patent license granted under the
> License to the whole of the Work, including the Contribution.
Because in this case, the collective is part of the basis, rather than a
separable piece?
Sorry to restate this; I'm just trying to understand. Thank you for taking
the time to explain.
--- Noel
