<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/7/2026 10:06 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:TY7PR01MB157026E48BDBE28F282F0BCCDADB12@TY7PR01MB15702.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com"><br>
<p><span><b>Q3 (termination directed only at the Licensor; patent
claim terminating the copyright grant):</b></span></p>
<ul data-editing-info="{"unorderedStyleType":1}">
<li>
<span role="presentation">McCoy, May 2025: concluded "not an
OSD violation, but an uptake issue" [9]</span></li>
<li>
<span role="presentation">Moming, Jun 2025: the
automatic-termination change [10]</span></li>
<li>
<span role="presentation">OpenMDW thread, Aug-Sep 2026:
precedents for patent claims terminating copyright grants
[11]; Yokoi-san's three-axis framing [12]</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>This response only addresses one of my concerns with the
termination provision (the latter in the parenthetical). Let me
spell out the concern in more detail:</p>
<p>ModelGo Attribution allows for termination upon a patent
assertion. But is says: <br>
<br>
</p>
<p>"This License shall terminate immediately if You breach any
material term and/or condition of this License, or if You initiate
any legal action *against the Licensor* alleging that the <br>
Licensed Materials and/or Derivative Materials infringe any patent
worldwide. Sections 3, 4 and 6 shall survive the termination of
this License."</p>
<p>"Licensor" means the rights owner that is granting the License.</p>
<p>That means a patent assertion against a *Licensee* (someone who
has received and is using the licensed code, but has not granted
any license too it) does not trigger termination of the license.
This puts Licensors & Licensees in different positions vis a
vis patent assertions, and therefore arguably violates OSD 5 ("No
Discrimination Against Persons or Groups<br>
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.").</p>
<p>Note that of the other licenses that have termination as the
result of patent assertions, the triggering event is a patent
assertion against the licensed work, not any particular party:</p>
<p>Apache-2.0: "If You institute patent litigation against *any
entity* (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
*alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the
Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement*"</p>
<p>MPL-2.0: " If You initiate litigation against *any entity* by
asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory
judgment actions, counter-claims, and cross-claims) *alleging that
a Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any
patent*"</p>
<p>EPL-2.0: "If Recipient institutes patent litigation against *any
entity* (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
*alleging that the Program itself (excluding combinations of the
Program with other software or hardware) infringes such
Recipient\u2019s patent(s)*"</p>
<p>GPL-3.0: "you may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) *alleging that any
patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.*"</p>
<p>I wonder if you might wish to change the termination language to
be more consistent with how these other licenses approach it, and
whether others have concerns as to whether the current formulation
causes a OSD 5 (or other OSD provision) problem.<br>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>