For Approval: Educational Community License 1.0

John Cowan cowan at
Mon Apr 30 18:02:43 UTC 2007

Christopher D. Coppola scripsit:

> We had a chance to discuss the suggestion that we should mention in
> the ECL 2.0 that there is only one sentence that is different from  
> the Apache 2.0 and that?s all folks need to consider if they are  
> already familiar with the Apache 2.0 license.  We think it?s a very  
> helpful suggestion, and we are submitting a revised draft of the  
> license that makes the change.


[discussion of implicit vs. explicit patent grants snipped]

Hey, I'm all for explicit patent grants -- they make for clarity.  I was
simply pointing out that there is an informal interpretive tradition
around the MIT license, namely that the appearance of the patent-grant
verbs "use" and "sell" (two of the five traditional verbs "make, use,
sell, offer for sale, import") estops any licensor from claiming a patent
violation with respect to the software, since it is inconsistent to grant
the right to use software while withholding a patent license essential
for its use.  And if the original licensor is estopped, their patent
licensees are obviously also estopped.

John Cowan  cowan at
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  --John Donne

More information about the License-discuss mailing list