<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/10/2026 6:57 PM, Luis Villa wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFjZtRffhJCxMS1cTjrB_0q6E9hUJ+EtVEZsHiT8ajhhseoXsA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div dir="auto"><span>With the usual caveat that I\u2019m just
dipping my toe in this thread and reading every fifth post
at best:</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 6:08\u202fPM Pamela
Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p dir="auto">What I find distinguishable about a
termination of the copyright license versus the patent
license is that copyright infringement doesn't happen by
accident. There is no copyright infringement without
deliberate, knowing copying. Someone may have made the
judgment call that the copying is lawful, and therefore
not an infringement, but it was nevertheless intentional
conduct.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">This conflates two different things: copying is
always intentional, but not all copying is copyright
infringement. There are very clear good-faith arguments (under
both the EU\u2019s TDM exception and US fair use) that the sorts of
copying we\u2019re mostly talking about here are not copyright
infringement.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Now, maybe you don\u2019t agree with those arguments
(I move back and forth myself a lot of the time!) but
intentional copying doesn\u2019t mean intentional infringement.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I very carefully did not say that all copying was copyright
infringement. But the license doesn't distinguish. Someone could
intentionally and knowingly infringe copyright, slap this license on
it, and restrict the ability of the wronged party to use their
software or AI model/system. That's the scenario I am thinking
about.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a>
</body>
</html>