<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" dir="auto">On 8/13/26 14:00, Pamela Chestek wrote:<br>
> I recall a presentation at a conference many years ago tracing the <br>
> history of different licenses and the scope of revocation. As I recall <br>
> it, there was an expansion to include copyright termination but then <br>
> that retracted back to just patent. Can anyone provide some color on the <br>
> thinking about why copyright termination may or should be disfavored <br>
> upon a patent infringement claim?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>[I'm not getting all emails to the list, so only seeing this by way of reply.] <br><br>My understanding from conversations during drafting of MPL 2 was simply that when the clause was first written (for NPL 1.0, which I believe created the concept), the main concern was inter-corporate warfare: Sun going after Netscape, Netscape going after IBM, etc. So the termination was scoped with the assumption that both sides would have patents and so patents were sufficient for MAD.</div><div><br></div><div>As we started seeing suggestions that patent-holders might go after contributors who did not themselves hold patents, we tried to figure out how to give some recourse. Given the high market penetration of Firefox everywhere at the time, extending the reciprocity principle to copyright seemed like a reasonable defensive step to take.<br><br>[Again, genuinely not commenting on the new license, which I haven't read and haven't gamed out in the complicated current moment.]</div></div></div>
</div>