[License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license

[Prashant Shah]

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:

>> I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent
>> clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license
>> below, a BSD derivative.
>>
>
> I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . .
>
>     http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt

Apache License 2.0 is better when it comes to legal wordings.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

"3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use,
offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where
such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to
which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent
litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim
in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated
within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent
infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation
is filed."

Even golang is better : http://golang.org/PATENTS

IMHO, if you want to base something on then go with Apache 2 rather
than BSD/MIT since Apache is most bullet proof license when it comes
to legal wordings. Even Google uses it for most of its projects.

I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause -
sections 1, 2 & 4. So
I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its
just a template right now - nothing serious.

https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt

Regards.