Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License

[M. Drew Streib]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 04:15:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> based on the copyright permissions granted.  Note that the Intel
> BSD+Patent License does not make copying dependent upon patent
> noninfringement.  The patent grant is a separate term.

Could it be a separate document altogether?

Step 1: Release under BSD license, not tied to any other terms.
Step 2: Grant a patent license, under a separate document.

It should be clear that step 1 is in no way reliant on step 2. I know
that patents suck _thii...iis_ much, but I'm wondering if the way to
solve this is to keep the patents away from the copyright. This also
solves the "we would approve it under BSD, but not with restrictions"
argument, since there is a full BSD 'normal' license grant.

The real problem is that the BSD license doesn't necessarily infer
a patent license grant, which in some minds makes it GPL incompatible
to begin with. :/ (can of worms)

-drew

-- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype at dtype.org> | http://dtype.org/
FSG <dtype at freestandards.org>    | Linux International <dtype at li.org>
freedb <dtype at freedb.org>        | SourceForge <dtype at sourceforge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011030/0e7d840a/attachment.sig>