<html><body><div><br></div><div><br>On Mar 07, 2017, at 04:09 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> wrote:<br><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"><span class="body-text-content">On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite" class="quoted-plain-text">Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are</blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="quoted-plain-text">any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in</blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="quoted-plain-text">the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its</blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="quoted-plain-text">kind. If there ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation</blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="quoted-plain-text">any worse than currently exists and approval could move forward.</blockquote><br>I'm not aware of any.</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>I guess that's a good thing... (oof! more work then)<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span> </span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"><span class="body-text-content">There is the 'Clear BSD' license, which the FSF considers not only a<br>free software license but also GPL-compatible:<br><br><a href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD" data-mce-href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD">https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD</a><br><a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd" data-mce-href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd</a><br><br>But I am not aware of this license ever having been submitted for OSI<br>approval.</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>It's okay if OS != FS. They're allowed to get it wrong from time to time too. ;)<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span class="body-text-content"></span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"><span class="body-text-content">I've also seen one or two companies engage in the practice of<br>licensing code under GPLv2 accompanied by a statement that no patent<br>licenses are granted.</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>By my reading, those "distribution terms" violate OSD #1 and #7. This is potentially a problem for any license (e.g., all the permissives) that doesn't specifically speak to patent rights. If the distribution terms specifically deny a patent grant, it will no longer be possible to freely redistribute the source code (that is, IF any contributor holds patent rights whose claims are implemented by the source code...).<br></span></div><div><span> </span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"><span class="body-text-content">So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that,<br>when used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license<br>grant]", for example?</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Yes! It would only be required on any license that explicitly disclaims patent rights. However, it'd also be a reasonable statement for any license that grants implicitly as well. For those, the converse might be, "this license is NOT Open Source if it is accompanied by an explicit denial of patent rights." Of course, explicit denial arguably makes the distribution terms of any license fail the OSD.</span><br></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Cheers!<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Sean<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div></body></html>