Make 2(b) use the definition of Defensive Purpose rather than providing a different definition of "defensively" #14

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@joshtriplett

This ensures that a company filing a patent suit for a Defensive Purpose does not open themselves to lawsuits by other companies who follow this agreement.

@jrconlin

In addition, can we have some clarification of what "Defensive" means or in what context it applies?

For instance, say I create a library that uses GPL. I discover that Twitter uses it, but fails to publish the code/include copyright statement/etc. If I sought correction, would that trigger a "Defensive" action of being sued for any patent related content my library (or other libraries I may have authored) may contain?

The above is just one potential non-patent related scenario that could trigger the defense mechanism. I can easily imagine others.

@joshtriplett

@jrconlin That seems like a separate issue. This pull request will make sure the whole agreement uses the same definition of "Defensive Purpose"; if you want to clarify that definition, I'd suggest filing a separate issue about that.

I do agree that the issue you raised seems significant.

@jrconlin

Thanks, will do. Also took the opportunity to generalize it a bit:
#15

@benltwitter
Collaborator

I like this pull request (even though recursion sometimes makes my head hurt). Unless I can think of some reason over the weekend for not doing this, I think I will merge it...

@joshtriplett

I like this pull request (even though recursion sometimes makes my head hurt). Unless I can think of some reason over the weekend for not doing this, I think I will merge it...

Any status on this? Any reasons not to merge? (Happy to update if doesn't apply.)

@joshtriplett

Any plans to incorporate this change?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment