STWL 1.0, revision 5

[Bernhard Fastenrath]

I've simplified paragraphs 6 and 7, forming a single paragraph 6 that 
hopefully is able to avoid use of this license without paragraph 5 being 
valid.

     5. In case the licensee takes legal action alleging infringement of 
software patents the licensee holds, excluding countersuits, and 
concerning open source software as defined by the Open Source Initiative 
(OSI) this license is suspended for the duration of the validity of said 
patents.

     6. If any part of this license might be against the local or 
otherwise relevant law or become ineffective in any other way, the rest 
of the license looses it’s effect.

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
 > I'm missing the "excluding countersuits" that you had in the
 > previous version. But legally speaking it seems fine.
 >
 > I would say "by a competent court" rather than "by local
 > jurisdiction". A jurisdiction is a geographical region
 > which cannot rule anything. And "competent" here means "has
 > the authority to rule", not "they understand what they're
 > doing" :)
 >
 > But if the clause is unenforceable, then I don't think it's
 > enforceable to invoke an at-will suspension clause. That would
 > so evidently be an attempt to avoid the court's order that it
 > might be seen as contempt.
 > In principle the clause seems enforceable. It's similar to the
 > early versions of the OSL and AFL and several other licenses
 > (MPL1.0?). But it's a good way to get the license blacklisted
 > at any patent-owning company.
 >
 > Arnoud

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Bernhard Fastenrath wrote:
> 
>>	5. In case the licensee takes legal action alleging infringement of 
>>software patents the licensee holds and concerning open source software 
>>as defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) this license is suspended 
>>for the duration of the validitiy of said patents.
> 
> 
> I'm missing the "excluding countersuits" that you had in the
> previous version. But legally speaking it seems fine.
> 
> 
>>	6. In case the previous clause is held to be unenforceable by local 
>>jurisdiction the author of this software retains the right to suspend 
>>this license at any time without further explanation under the 
>>conditions of the previous paragraph.
> 
> 
> I would say "by a competent court" rather than "by local
> jurisdiction". A jurisdiction is a geographical region
> which cannot rule anything. And "competent" here means "has
> the authority to rule", not "they understand what they're
> doing" :)
> 
> But if the clause is unenforceable, then I don't think it's
> enforceable to invoke an at-will suspension clause. That would
> so evidently be an attempt to avoid the court's order that it
> might be seen as contempt.
> 
> 
>>Yes, the clause could only form a protective environment based on 
>>hesitation to enforce software patents against open source if a large 
>>number of projects were to adopt similar clauses and, of course, the 
>>clause were enforceable at all.
> 
> 
> In principle the clause seems enforceable. It's similar to the
> early versions of the OSL and AFL and several other licenses
> (MPL1.0?). But it's a good way to get the license blacklisted
> at any patent-owning company.
> 
> Arnoud
-- 
www.citizens-initiative.org <http://www.citizens-initiative.org/>