<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background-color:transparent">On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 8:02\u202fPM John Colagioia via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u><div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span></div><div>The jump to copyright seems worrying, because this is (presumably) a copyright license. In fact, that raises a more worrying aspect, the other half of the anti-litigation clause, "...unless that lawsuit was in response to a corresponding lawsuit first brought against you."</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not familiar with any term of art, here, so should we read "corresponding" as meaning that the lawsuit relates to the use of the model? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This is another interesting point. I'm not sure it's the biggest problem but I would say that "corresponding" is ambiguous.</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The clause again is:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)">><i> If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit against any
</i>><i> person or entity asserting that the Model Materials directly or indirectly
</i>><i> infringe any patent or copyright, then all rights and grants made to you
</i>><i> hereunder are terminated, unless that lawsuit was in response to a
</i>><i> corresponding lawsuit first brought against you.</i></pre></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I don't think "corresponding" should be read as meaning "the claims of the two lawsuits must have related underlying subject matter", but I'm not sure why the word is needed at all. If the idea was that the two "lawsuits" had to be claims within the same case/litigation, the use of the word "lawsuit" is kind of odd. My guess is that "a corresponding" is simply supposed to be equivalent to "another", but I'm not sure.</div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Richard</div></div></div>