> I have not read the fine print of all of this so my idea here may be dead in the water...
Many commercial software patent licensing agreements for at least the last twenty years (the timeframe I've noticed contracts tend to have realized open source and networks are a thing) have clauses that specifically prevent or limit this, called "preemptive sublicensing restrictions":
In the "fine print" of the Thread agreements including IP agreement -- reading not very closely and while commenting here -- they ensure this a little obliquely:
In the various agreements they've defined Implementor as what you need to, well, implement it, and it does allow sublicensing to affiliates, but separates out Participants and Associates from Affiliates, and puts a high bar on what can be an Affiliate.
Based on the provided definition of "Affiliate" in the context of the Thread Group, Inc. Implementer Participation Agreement, an Implementer cannot simply sign agreements with third parties to make them "Affiliates" in order to sublicense the Implementer's license. According to the definition, an "Affiliate" must be a corporation, company, or other entity that either owns or controls the Implementer, is owned or controlled by the Implementer, or is under common control with the Implementer, with a significant threshold of more than fifty percent ownership or control.
This means that the relationship defining an entity as an Affiliate is based on substantial ownership or control rather than merely contractual agreements. An Implementer would need to have a majority ownership or control over another entity for that entity to qualify as an Affiliate and thereby enjoy the rights and privileges, including any sublicensing rights, granted under the Implementer's license. This ensures that Affiliates are closely tied to the primary Participant, maintaining a direct and substantial connection rather than a loose contractual relationship.
// IANAL, YMMV, ask your attorney, standard disclaimers apply
Many commercial software patent licensing agreements for at least the last twenty years (the timeframe I've noticed contracts tend to have realized open source and networks are a thing) have clauses that specifically prevent or limit this, called "preemptive sublicensing restrictions":
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/10/sublicensing-considera...
In the "fine print" of the Thread agreements including IP agreement -- reading not very closely and while commenting here -- they ensure this a little obliquely:
https://www.threadgroup.org/Becomemember
In the various agreements they've defined Implementor as what you need to, well, implement it, and it does allow sublicensing to affiliates, but separates out Participants and Associates from Affiliates, and puts a high bar on what can be an Affiliate.
Based on the provided definition of "Affiliate" in the context of the Thread Group, Inc. Implementer Participation Agreement, an Implementer cannot simply sign agreements with third parties to make them "Affiliates" in order to sublicense the Implementer's license. According to the definition, an "Affiliate" must be a corporation, company, or other entity that either owns or controls the Implementer, is owned or controlled by the Implementer, or is under common control with the Implementer, with a significant threshold of more than fifty percent ownership or control.
This means that the relationship defining an entity as an Affiliate is based on substantial ownership or control rather than merely contractual agreements. An Implementer would need to have a majority ownership or control over another entity for that entity to qualify as an Affiliate and thereby enjoy the rights and privileges, including any sublicensing rights, granted under the Implementer's license. This ensures that Affiliates are closely tied to the primary Participant, maintaining a direct and substantial connection rather than a loose contractual relationship.
// IANAL, YMMV, ask your attorney, standard disclaimers apply