Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:26:18 +0900

Ben Tilly writes:

 > The key here from my point of view is 3.  You should not reasonable
 > expect me to attempt to modify your GPLed code to make it infringe on
 > another patent that you have.  Therefore there is no reliance if I do
 > so, and you cannot be held to your promise to not sue me.  Ditto if I
 > take your GPLed code and modify it by borrowing from some non-GPLed
 > code of yours.

 > However you should reasonably expect me to copy, modify and distribute
 > your code if you release it under the GPL, so if you sue me for that I
 > should be able to hold you to your promise. :-)

I don't understand what you're trying to say.  My expectation, as I
said in discussing whether GPLv2's implicit license is the same as
GPLv3d2's explicit covenant, is that claims actually implemented in
the software *will* be used in modified software.  However, I expect
hackers to exercise due diligence and in particular avoid practicing
claims in my patent that are not embodied in the software.

The patent number(s) and the claims that I believe are covered by the
covenant or implicit license, will be listed in the permissions notice
for your convenience.

How does that compare to what you have in mind?