The problem we have is that our attorney does not understand the reason behind the separate clauses for patent rights in the original Mozilla Public License, and cannot explain to us the consequences of changes. QUOTE > I cannot understand why the drafter of >the Mozilla public licence sees it necessary to have separate licensing >clauses (2.2 (b), (c), (d)) and termination clauses (8.2, 8.3, 8.4) for >patent right > >(but interestingly not for copyright which is more relevant). > >There may be a good reason to do that for accounting purposes (ie > >calculation of royalty). > >In any event, I would think the rewritten clause 2.2 (a), which is general > >in nature, is sufficent for the purpose of the public licence. >> The term "intellectual property rights" > >will include any patent, if any, that you may be able to obtain in relation to the > >software. The new clause 2.2 (a), is as follows: > >"Subject to third party intellectual property claims, each Contributor > >hereby grants you a perpetual > >world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, make, have made, > >reproduce, modify, combine, > >display, perform, sublicense, sell, offer for sale, distribute and/or > >otherwise dispose of the Modifications > >created by such Contributor (or portions thereof) either on an > >unmodified basis, with other Modifications, > >as Covered Code and/or as part of a Larger Work." UNQUOTE Could someone please explain and clarify why separate clauses are needed for patent rights of the original MPL so that we can decide whether or not we need to make changes? Thanks!
