On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org> wrote: > Jeff Epler <jep...@unpythonic.net> writes: > >> Apparently, >> https://github.com/facebook/zstd >> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE >> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/PATENTS > > Thank you for this, and for the complete text of the conditions. It > allows discussion to be more easily read in the archives of this forum. > > >> Contents of .../LICENSE of this date: >> BSD License >> >> For Zstandard software >> […] > > That is a standard 3-clauses BSD license. It grants all the > DFSG-required freedoms to every recipient. > >> Copyright (c) 2016-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved. > > The “All rights reserved” is legal twaddle AFAICT, because it is then > immediately contradicted by *granting* some rights to the recipient. > > The “Copyright (c) 2016-present” is an overreach. Copyright inheres when > a work is published – fixed in a medium of expression – not forever into > the future, whenever the “present” that the document is being read. > > Neither of those is a DFSG problem, I believe. They do exhibit a > troubling disregard for the proper limits to copyright. > > >> Contents of .../PATENTS of this date: >> Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2 >> >> "Software" means the Zstandard software distributed by Facebook, Inc. >> >> Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software >> ("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable >> (subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary >> Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise >> transfer the Software. > > I'm less familiar with the effects of wording in patent law. This has > the appearance of granting limited license to exercise patents held by > Facebook. > >> The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and >> without notice, if you […] > > What is “hereunder” intended to mean? No license is granted following > that text; the only license granted in this document is *above* (prior > to) this text. > > Does it mean “the license granted below”? If so, it appears to be null, > because there is no such license. > > Does it mean “the license granted in this document”? If so, this clause > is attempting to punish patent attacks with revocation of the patent > license granted above. > > > This clause is activated when the recipient asserts a proprietary idea > patent over some other party's use of that idea. > > I am quite sure the act of asserting software idea patents is not a > freedom anyone is guaranteed in free software; indeed, it is violently > contrary to software freedom. > > So, because it does not appear to limit any DFSG freedom, this clause > appears to me to be no problem for the DFSG.
OK, I understand your point. Thanks for your time.
