Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License

David Johnson david at
Wed Oct 31 02:27:09 UTC 2001

On Tuesday 30 October 2001 02:06 pm, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> 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.

I heartily second this motion. There is no need for YAOSSL, especially one 
that is nearly identical to existing licenses (expect for the patent stuff).

Having a Patent License for patent encumbered software is far better than no 
patent license for same, but the software cannot be Open Source in either 
case. The only software that could be considered Open Source under the 
proposed license would be software that was NOT encumbered by patents to 
begin with, making the Patent License redundant.

David Johnson
pgp public key on website
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list