[License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
jim at jimjag.com
Fri Mar 9 11:30:09 UTC 2012
On Mar 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Pardon my interjecting, but I think you may have misread Russ's point.
> I _believe_ he was saying that, if a codebase is encumbered by patents
> not available royalty-free (e.g., only under 'RAND' terms), then the
> software in question ends up being effectively proprietary in
> jurisdictions where the patent is enforceable, irrespective of the
> software's licence -- as long as the software continues to implement the
> patented method, anyway: Derivatives that no longer do that would be
> open source if the licensing and other relevant facts permit.
BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions?
In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and "localized"
restrictions. So does this mean that software distributed out of
the US, no matter the OSI license, isn't "really" open source?
More information about the License-discuss