I see your point. OK, so I'm going throw out a strawman here, just to see what happens. Assume for the sake of argument that OSI decides to add a patent grant/license/whatever as part of the requirements of the OSD. Will OSI then re-evaluate all currently approved licenses using the new criteria (potentially rejecting some that were previously accepted), or will it 'grandfather in' the currently approved licenses, and reject any new ones that don't have some kind of patent clause? I can see arguments both for and against either approach.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 7:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 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. > > > ________________________________ > > > > I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. > If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it > should be added as a criteria and a license passes or fails based on the > license text itself. > > Not CC0 and some patent agreement that has not been written. > > If Creative Commons feels strongly that CC0 should only be used with some > sort of patent grant the easiest course is simply to remove the > disclaimer of patent grant and call it CC0-software or something. Then it > would have the same implicit grant as BSD and there is no issue > with approval and no new composite license structure that will just confuse > people even more. > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <[email protected] < > Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > > Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 4:56 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected] < > Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD > > That is true, but OSI can make it clear that when software is licensed, then > the licensor is expected to license any necessary patents that > the licensor owns along with licensing the copyright. If there are patents > that the licensor is unaware of, then the licensor can't do > anything about that either. > > And like you, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:[email protected] < > > Caution-mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of > > Ben Tilly > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:45 PM > > To: License Discuss <[email protected]> > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [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. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > My legal rights to software on the computer in front of me may be > > restricted by many things. A short and incomplete list includes > > copyright law, patents, contracts, who owns the computer and my employment > > status. Any and all of these can impact whether I > actually enjoy the freedoms that the OSD describes. I may be unaware of or > misinformed about any or all these potential encumbrances. > > > > When we talk about whether a software license is OSD compliant, we are > > only addressing the question of whether this license restricts > > software under copyright law in a way that violates the OSD. In principle > > it is generally impossible to decide whether I *actually* have > the rights described by the OSD to the software in front of me. > > > > (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.) > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison <[email protected] < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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-Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > license-discuss < Caution-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
