For approval: MXM Public license
nelson at crynwr.com
Mon Apr 13 14:22:16 UTC 2009
Luis Villa writes:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> > Luis Villa scripsit:
> >> > Hrm. I didn't mean that someone was bloviating about the BSD.
> >> > There's been plenty of that. I meant that I've never heard of anybody
> >> > who said "Here is this patent-encumbered code licensed under the BSD
> >> > license for which I am not granting you a license".
> Does go directly to the point that there are examples where code has
> been placed out there where patents are licensed by the code-writing
> organization, and which are very definitely *not* passed along with
> the MIT/BSD-style license.
Also hrm. Seems that I was proposing the wrong test. If you say
"Here is this patent-encumbered code licensed under the BSD license
for which I am not granting you a license" isn't that acknowledging
that there IS in fact an implicit patent license which they must
Instead, a disproof has to work the way I first proposed: Somebody
gets a patent, writes patented code, distributes it under the BSD, and
then asserts "You have no patent license" and sues them.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com
Cloudmade supports http://openstreetmap.org/
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
More information about the License-review