License Problems

First and foremost, I am not a lawyer, nor do I profess to be one. I have talked to a lawyer about this subject. Below is my interpretation of what the lawyer said.

It may not be exactly accurate. It is up to you to verify with your lawyer if this is true or not. Please let me know what your lawyer says about the license. I can be e-mailed at deanhiller2000@yahoo.com.

Sun Public License problems(Netbeans)

8.2(b) states this

8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as "Participant") alleging that:

(b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that Participant.

Let's go through a scenario and its repercussions.
  1. CompanyA contributes software under the SPL to netbeans
  2. CompanyA develops a product C which infringes on CompanyB's patent that has nothing to do with netbeans
  3. CompanyB uses netbeans
  4. CompanyB(possibly Sun themselves) sues CompanyA for patent infringement
Result: CompanyB(possibly sun) has lost its right to use netbeans and is an infringer of any of CompanyA's copyrights and patent rights in CompanyA's contribution to netbeans because product C falls under the "any software, hardware, or device" category.

In my opinion, Sun wrote this license to protect themselves. They may not have meant for other contributors to use it at all, but other contributors probably are using it. In my opinion, they are not trying to protect contributors, they are trying to protect themselves and did not realize other developers might use their own license.

IBM Common Public License problems(Junit and Eclipse)

If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

I know this paragraph looks harmless. It took a lot of time and patiently talking to the lawyer to understand it. Probably only the lawyers realize how dangerous this clause is. Let me go to a scenario again…
  1. CompanyA contributes its patented software under the CPL to Junit or Eclipse
  2. CompanyA develops a product C which infringes on CompanyB's software patent
  3. CompanyB uses Junit or Eclipse
  4. CompanyB(possibly IBM themselves) sues CompanyA for patent infringement
CompanyB must now stop using Junit or Eclipse.Why? Well, because CompanyB is now an infringer of CompanyA's patent. If CompanyB did not stop using Junit, companyA could counter-sue for patent infringement of its patent in Junit or Eclipse.

In addition, 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's patent(s), then such Recipient's rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

This is the next half of the paragraph, and this one is ok. This protects Junit or Eclipse from being sued because it infringes someone's patent. If that someone decides to sue, they have to stop using Junit or Eclipse. Makes sense.