[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

Henrik Ingo wrote:

MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

 

I also would like to see a reference to that written statement. But I believe it to be true only if it means:

 

. . . does *not* grant *an additional* patent license. 

 

The patent right to *use* that legally acquired software is an implied patent grant for all software licensed in ordinary commerce, but this does not necessarily include a patent license for derivative works or other unintended uses.

 

It has long been believed by many of us that universities, research institutions, and other large patent holders are quite comfortable with the short BSD and MIT licenses because they are safe copyright-only licenses. Those licenses do not implicate their vast patent portfolios for derivative works or other uses. 

 

Is that on record by them? Or simply assumed by those of us who believe that implicit and unwritten patent promises don't exist (except for the right to use that software unmodified). Can I really take any of MIT's patents now implemented in MIT-licensed open source software and create derivative works involving those (or related) MIT patents?

 

Quite frankly, I believe the Apache and MPL licenses are much better. They do contain written patent promises, and so are safer and explicitly more generous. 

 

The BSD and MIT licenses are okay if all you really care about are copyrights.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:19 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Cc: henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:05 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org <mailto:cowan at ccil.org> > wrote:

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> > wrote:

 

Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
that the BSD license is also a patent license.

 

MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

 

Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there.

 

Thanks,

 

S.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161212/a12ab26d/attachment.html>