3 ms·

Ah, I see the distinction that you're making, though I would disagree with the statement that the latter situation is "better". If I'm release software with th

Ah, I see the distinction that you're making, though I would disagree with the statement that the latter situation is "better". If I'm release software with that clause, I'm in a position to take advantage of anybody who uses the software, because they would have to cease using it before they could sue me, even on legitimate grounds. That said, I'm not surprised that you (as a lawyer) would prefer the latter; it exposes your client to less liability, and lawyers tend to be very risk-averse, for obvious reasons.

DannyBee 13y ago
You gave them software for free, it's not clear what legitimate grounds you want to accept liability for, but that's up to you :) Given the "get sued by people over patents for releasing popular open source software" occurs very often for companies that deal with open source software and have money, ... As for risk aversion, I am probably one of the least risk averse lawyers you will meet. My goal in this case is not to protect my clients, my goal is to see the open source ecosystem stop being destroyed for dumb reasons.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  Nevermind, I just re-read the text of v2, and it seems more limited in scope that what I previously thought. > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. I was also trying to thing of some pathalogical edge case in which I release something under an Apache license in order to preempt a lawsuit that I've infringed on someone else's patent... but I guess that doesn't make sense, since that would require that they accept the terms of the license to begin with. So, I guess that's not really as much of a problem as I thought.

DannyBee 13y ago

You gave them software for free, it's not clear what legitimate grounds you want to accept liability for, but that's up to you :) Given the "get sued by people over patents for releasing popular open source software" occurs very often for companies that deal with open source software and have money, ... As for risk aversion, I am probably one of the least risk averse lawyers you will meet. My goal in this case is not to protect my clients, my goal is to see the open source ecosystem stop being destroyed for dumb reasons.

chimeracoder 13y ago
Nevermind, I just re-read the text of v2, and it seems more limited in scope that what I previously thought. > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. I was also trying to thing of some pathalogical edge case in which I release something under an Apache license in order to preempt a lawsuit that I've infringed on someone else's patent... but I guess that doesn't make sense, since that would require that they accept the terms of the license to begin with. So, I guess that's not really as much of a problem as I thought.