<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 5:37\u202fPM McCoy Smith <mccoy@lexpan.law> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
If you truly believe that the model is something that is copyright <br>
infringing of your copyrights, why would you continue to *want* to use it?*<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it is still delivering valuable results? Because, having discovered it uses your work, you feel more entitled to benefit from it not less? Because you have a paid account to a larger service offering? Because "participat[ing] in a lawsuit against any person or entity asserting that the Model Materials directly or indirectly infringe any patent or copyright" is so all-inclusive that the case may not be closely associated with your usage of the tool you are using? Because the case in question is a broader copyright enforcement action against a corporation that does not respect open source license conditions? </div><div><br></div><div>I can think of plenty of reasons threatening a user with loss of capabilities that they need is unreasonably chilling especially when those capabilities are part of a broad service offering that's offered all-or-nothing. <span style="background-color:transparent">Reciprocal denial may be an appropriate sanction for patent licenses in a case between patent-holding aggressors, but the copyright trigger goes far beyond that special case to touch individuals, projects and communities that just want to enforce their open source licenses.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Simon</div><div>(in a personal capacity)</div></div></div><div><font size="1"><br></font></div></div>