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

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Thu May 23 18:43:57 UTC 2019

Larry, what about companies that separate their patent-holding entity from
their operational entity, the entity that touches Open Source, and the
entity that brings lawsuits? I do know for a fact that Qualcomm operates a
separate entity for their Open Source involvement.



On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:42 AM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock wrote:
> > .  If a program has functionality covered by a patent owned by a
> completely unrelated 3rd party, the program's license doesn't give all the
> Patent rights a user needs.  At best, you could claim that the program's
> license gives all the Patent rights FROM THE IDENTIFIED CONTRIBUTORS that a
> user needs.
> Don't forget the important defensive termination provisions in some
> licenses. If the copyright license to an important open source program is
> terminated because of the filing by that third party of a patent lawsuit
> against that program, this may be a sufficient defense for protecting our
> software. Even third parties must be careful who they sue.
> /Larry
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190523/de14343a/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list