<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for software:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>7. Distribution of License<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I assumed "the rights" referred to here are only "copyright rights." Before OSI approved a license in the old days, some government agencies and universities complained because they had other, more complicated, patent rights to distribute that might require or engage "additional" non-copyright licenses. At that time, nobody insisted that an open source license also include patent rights. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>We never fully thought that through, which is why we are still talking about this problem for government and university software years later!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>As a customer, I personally would prefer an explicit patent license within my open source copyright license. I like Apache's patent provision for that reason. I would like governments and universities to patent things only on the assumption that <u>both</u> copyright and patent rights will explicitly be licensed under a single OSI-approved license so that the software can be <u>useful</u> as well as <u>open</u>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Am I reading this OSD #7 correctly? Would the dear departed Antonin Scalia have considered this the "original intent" of the authors of that one-sentence OSD #7 provision?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.<br>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:01 PM<br>To: henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi<br>Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "<a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@gmail.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20Henrik%20Ingo"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>henrik.ingo@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo</span></a>"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><<a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@gmail.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>henrik.ingo@gmail.com on behalf of henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>taking an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>separate file with additional terms and conditions, results in a <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>combination which as a whole is not OSI approved open source license. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>It is no different from taking the BSD license and making additions to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>it within the same file.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>In what way is the BSD copyright license impacted by an external patent grant license?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>How is this different than combining a BSD copyright license and an external trademark license agreement?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>IMHO it has everything to do with whether patents are in or out of scope for OSI license approval for copyright licenses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>I categorize patent grants with wide reaching termination clauses as <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>commons-friendly. Like I said, my only regret is that there aren¹t <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>licenses being used that would be even more wide reaching than this one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>That¹s fine as long as there are open source licenses with far more narrow grants or no grants whatsoever like CC0.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>CC0->ECL v2->Apache->React should all be fine from a OSI license <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>CC0->approval<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>perspective.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>License-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>