Your first condition is already in licenses like the Apache 2.0, GPLv3 and several other licenses. However, it isn&#x27;t a requirement that &quot;the patents are in the public domain&quot; (mainly because such a requirement doesn&#x27;t make sense, the public domain is a term used in copyright law to refer to a work with no copyright, it has <i>nothing</i> to do with patent law). Rather, it states that all contributors grant a &quot;perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable&quot; patent license to any other user of the software, provided that they do not attempt to sue a user for infringement of patents that were granted under that license.<p>Your second condition would make the license a proprietary licence (it violates freedom #0: the right to run the program as you wish without restriction). In addition, I&#x27;m not sure that it would enforcible with current copyright law (similar to the provisions in the AGPL), since I&#x27;m not sure you can argue that input data to a program is something that you could restrict in law (and if it&#x27;s free software, the end user can modify it to allow you to break that rule). And it would also be a minefield (what if something <i>could</i> be patentable, or is patented by someone other than the person who distributed it, what if the patent holder gave a patent grant to the rest of humanity, how many requirements are there for such a grant in order for it to be allowed, etc).