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

[Lawrence Rosen]

Richard Fontana suggested:

> So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", for example?

 

Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies might be able to live with. :-)  If I understand correctly, there is already an existing government policy that patent rights are granted to all users of the software, albeit separately by policy rather than by license.

 

And if I understand correctly, that is already the implied promise in Europe?

 

/Larry

 

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:09 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

 

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:

 

> 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.

 

I'm not aware of any.

 

There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a free software license but also GPL-compatible:

 

 <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD

 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd

 

But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI approval.

 

I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of licensing code under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent licenses are granted.

 

> 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.

 

So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", for example?

 

Richard

_______________________________________________

License-discuss mailing list

 <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170307/b2305f44/attachment.html>