> However, the Apache 2.0 patent shield is comparatively weak (when compared to GPLv3 and MPLv2) because it only revokes the patent license rather than the entire license and so it actually acts like a permissive license even after you initiate patent litigation.
replyIsn't the idea that you could then sue the suer for infringing your patent?
Sure, if you have a patent. If you don't and the patent shield is intended more as pre-emptive protection then MPLv2 or GPLv3 are better.
replyIn this case, they do have a patent.
replySure, that is the point of the original point of the article after all. I was speaking about the problem in general (I suspect most Rust projects--if not most projects in general--with this setup do not have patents).
replyIt also requires actively persuing a patent case which may result in the patent being rendered invalid, while a termination clause for the whole license just requires a far more clear-cut copyright infringement claim (possibly achievable purely through the DMCA system, out of court). But I'm not a lawyer, maybe counter-suits are more common in such situations and so either approach is just as good in practice.
I always use the easy license for this stuff: Unlicense lol
replyGreat, but Unlicense doesn't grant patent rights so you have the exact same problem as MIT (actually it's even worse because Unlicense explicitly states that it is only concerned with copyrights multiple times).
reply