[mustache_kimono]

> You still need _intent_.

My goodness, and circumstantial evidence can establish intent. Knowledge plus actions in promoting an infringing product (like publishing MIT licensed source code without a notice) could be enough to establish intent. See, for example, DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

> You would be opening yet another Pandora's Box

I'm not saying everything is potentially infringing. I'm saying with knowledge and actions which induce, yes, it possibly is. Most FOSS would lack actual knowledge.

This is all hypothetical anyway. Franhoufer does in fact license their software without a patent grant which puts us all on notice that we need to obtain a patent license.

[AshamedCaptain]

You keep quoting a case where licensor was one of the patent holders, but this is hardly relevant. It would be much harder (euphemism for "impossible") to prove that there was intent when there is no possible revenue stream for the licensor. Knowledge is much easier to prove (most projects openly discuss the risk).