[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

[Smith, McCoy]

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:27 PM
>>To: Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison <brlcad at mac.com>
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

>>>>On May 22, 2019, at 11:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>> wrote:

>>>>And so OSI should educate you that patents are sometimes very important, and that the BSD license is currently not very useful in the open source environment. It is risky!

>>Has this actually been tested and/or demonstrated yet anywhere?  Surely with the tens of thousands of permissive-licensed codes in use in every corporate portfolio, one of them would have endured a >>test by now if it were risky.  Regardless, not knowing whether something is risky doesn’t make it risky, it makes it an unknown risk.  Baseless fear-mongering.

AFAIK it has not been tested in a court, but it is being tested in academic journals and in various conferences and workshops.  Here is an example of this proposition being tested in a legal academic journal:  http://stlr.org/2018/10/15/the-truth-about-oss-frand-by-all-indications-compatible-models-in-standards-settings/ and here is a counter-argument: http://stlr.org/2019/03/04/oss-and-frand-complementary-models-for-innovation-and-development/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190523/ad9c2206/attachment.html>