I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a Government position). It prevents people from freely modifying the code. That said, I don't have a problem with someone holding a software patent; in some cases, it may actually be beneficial because it prevents someone else from holding the same patent, so it may actually clarify what is being licensed[1].
Thanks, Cem Karan [1] I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, find someone that really knows the law to make sure this is correct. > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 6:41 PM > To: License Discussion Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > ---- > > > In light of the recent CC0 discussion, I’m refreshing my mind on what rights > are provided under patent law, each of the OSD criteria, and > any connections between them. > > From my reading, a patent gives the holder the right to exclude others from > (a) making, (b) using, (c) selling, or (d) importing/exporting > their invention. The OSD clauses refer to “the distribution terms” in rather > license- and copyright-agnostic terms, so here’s my basic > layman analysis: > > 1) Exclusion (a) seems not problematic for the OSD as it precludes others > outside of licensing. > 2) Certainly a problem in the broad sense, but exclusion (b) seems not > problematic with the OSD. > 3) Exclusion (c) seems to fail OSD clause #1 (Free Redistribution) and > possibly #7 (Distribution of license). > 4) Exclusion (d) similarly fails #1 and #7. > > So what? In terms of OSD compliance, there appears to be several issues if a > patent exists and one does not grant/hold a royalty-free > patent license. If I have a software patent and license that software under > CC0, for example, without any other distribution terms in > place, it’s my reading that this would technically be distribution terms that > violate OSD #1 and #7. > > This creates an interesting situation where “the distribution terms” of some > software will depend on whether the distributor holds a > patent, not necessarily on the language of their license. There are, of > course, ample examples of licenses that convey conforming patent > rights, both implicit and explicitly. > > Does anyone disagree that holding a patent and not granting a patent license > violates the OSD, perhaps as an out-of-band perspective? > Should the OSD only be measured against a copyright standard, as originally > drafted? Does OSI need to clarify “all bets are off” if there’ s > a patent or consider them as part of the distribution terms equally? What > are other people’s thoughts on this? > > Cheers! > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
