[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:56 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD
>
>
> On Mar 07, 2017, at 09:07 AM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" 
> <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>
>
>
> 	I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent 
> license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is
> my opinion, and not a Government position).
>
>
>
> It certainly fails a smell test in modern times.  However, this is not 
> something addressed by the OSI board, called out by the OSD, and has
> only been ad hoc discussed by folks here.
>
>
>
> Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are any 
> OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in the
> current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its kind.  If there 
> ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation any worse
> than currently exists and approval could move forward.
>
>
>
> If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses that 
> explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD-inadequate,
> particularly w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7.  Moreover, any license approval for a 
> new license containing a patent disclaimer (e.g., CC0) would
> necessarily require modification or accompaniment by a required patent grant 
> mechanism (such as ARL's approach) in order to satisfy the
> OSD.
>
>
>
> Of course, the OSI should still weigh in on this.  Either OSD is applied 
> as-is and patents are part of "the distribution terms", they are
> considered separate for historical reasons, or the OSD requires 
> modification.
>
>
>
>
> 	It prevents people from freely modifying the code.
>
>
>
> Actually holding a patent does not necessarily prevent modification of code. 
> Of course, there's doesn't seem to be much value in
> modifying the code if one doesn't have the right to use, sell, or export it 
> but it's technically not prohibited.  Even more importantly, such
> modification could very well make the code no longer satisfy patent claims, 
> thus it becoming usable, sellable, etc. again.

You're right of course.  My bad.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170307/491bb1a6/attachment.p7s>