Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode 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 > >> The clause we are discussing only applies if you allege that the >> *Original Work* consitutes patent infringment. > > I don't think this is well-defined or well-understood just yet. > > Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work > and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding. > > Joe derives XEmacs from that work. This inherits, among many other > things, GIF decoding. > > Bill sues Joe, claiming that XEmacs infringes his GIF patent. > > Does and should Bill lose his license to Emacs, in addition to XEmacs? > I think the answer to both is yes. > > This is analogous to what happens if you violate the GPL and lose your > license to a forked project: you lose your license to the original > project, too, since you violated that as well. (Or at least, that's > what I think happens.) Similarly, if you violate the original work, > you can no longer use any forks, either. If these things didn't happen, > the GPL would be a lot weaker, and probably have loopholes. > > (It might be that your "license" to the code shared in both projects > is one and the same, but I don't know.)
Yes, it is. Under the system used for nearly all free software licenses, the "license" to the code shared in both projects is a single license direct to you from Bob (the copyright holder). When you receive Linux, you receive a gobsmacking pile of individual licenses, one from each copyright holder. There are certain licenses which use sublicensing instead (mostly those drafted in England) and they would have different rules. -- This space intentionally left blank.