From:	mock	Date:	Mon May  1 04:17:02 2006
Subject:	Re: reconciling 4(c)ii with 13

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:48:27AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2006, at 2:38, mock wrote:
> > 
> > >Can't I do an end run around section 13, by picking an alternate  
> > >license that
> > >meets 4(c)ii but doesn't have the patent stuff from section 13?   
> > >For example
> > >GPL v2.
> > 
> > If anyone did start patent litigation against one of the Perl users  
> > (and we'd really prefer they don't), and triggered  section 13, then  
> > their right to redistribute under 4(c)(ii) is revoked along with the  
> > rest of the license.
> > 
> > You have to have copyright (because you own the package or because  
> > someone granted rights to you) before you can distribute to anyone.
> 
> But this revocation cannot chain, surely?
> 
> If
> 
> 1: Company A downloads source from TPF
> 2: Company A redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Company B
> 3: Company B redistributes source onwards under GPLv2 to Companies C,D,E
> 4: Company B unhelpfully starts patent litigation against someone
> 
> then as Company B obtained the source code under GPLv2, it hasn't broken any
> terms of that agreement, so can continue to distribute.
> 
> Nicholas Clark
> 

And correspondingly, if it does chain, then it was not truly available under
the GPLv2, as that license does not allow you to revoke based on patent 
litigation.

As I said, this seems to mean that the artistic v2 as it currently stands is
either incompatible with the GPLv2 or Section 13 is effectively meaningless, 
as any idiot would set up the chain as described above.

mock