Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[John Cowan]

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:

> And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
> A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
> Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.

The key question:  If Person C who has W' sues Person A for patent
infringement, does that void his license to do things with W'?

If so, and if X is under the GPL, then W' cannot lawfully be created, because
it is a derivative of two works with contradictory licensing terms.

If not, I suggest a sentence be added to the AFL saying that the M.T.P.A.
clause is expressly inapplicable to derivative works unless the work as
a whole is licensed under a license containing the M.T.P.A.  (More gracefully
worded, preferably.)

-- 
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                jcowan at reutershealth.com
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3