[License-review] For Approval: Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.6 (S-FSL v1.3.6)

Elmar Stellnberger estellnb at gmail.com
Fri Nov 15 11:13:12 UTC 2013


> >>
> >> I don't think it is. "Branched versions can not [...] use patents
> >> [...] in a new context unless explicit consent from the maintainers
> >> of the parent branch is given."
> >> Should I understand that consent has not been given for patents,
> >> thus the user cannot know if the maintainers have given it, or if
> >> the context is new enough for the maintainers' liking, or if they
> >> can branch on their own without being sued by the maintainers for
> >> patents?
> >
> >    Well the things with patents is that if the owner of a patent
> > wants to contribute his patent to S-FSL software then he needs to
> > give the original authors usage rights on his patent. It does however
> > not mean to contribute the patent to the community which would make
> > it at best worthless for the patent owner. However code that is
> > already being used by the community that contains a patent may still
> > be maintained. It needs permission to use the same patent in 'another
> > context'. The original authors may be restricted to give you. You can
> > not simply write new code that involves patents held by the original
> > authors, you need to ask for permission to do so.
>
> This fails OSD. Look from the perspective of the recipient of the 
> code. Let us say I work on various projects, libraries, scripts under 
> open source licenses.
>
> You're saying that if I "branch" or even rewrite an algorithm that was 
> implemented under your license or under OSS licenses that "patch" code 
> under your license, then you *intently* expose me to patent lawsuits.
> (and you try to extend that to other OSS licenses)
You should be save to change any code that makes use of patents because 
that ensures them to continue being used in the 'same context'.
>
> That's not an open source license. And, it's among the riskier I've 
> heard of. At least state up-front it's proprietary and tell people 
> they have no guarantees from it. Tell them that if they read that 
> algorithm and want to use that knowledge, then they're exposed 
> intently to lawsuits.
Look at GPL or BSD. Nobody will grant a program under this license to 
make use of patents. If you gave it to such a program nobody would hold 
the usage rights and you would effectively give your patent rights to 
the whole world which means to loose any right on your patent. I`d 
consider it a fairy tale that GPL or BSD would protect you against such 
lawsuits. Consequently you may not use them at all or you may only use 
them in a country like Austria that does not apply software patent law 
(AFAIK). The consequence is that these programs may not be used in other 
countries which is IMHO not what we want.

>
> Your license hides the lack of permission for patents use in a license 
> you claim to be open source. It is not.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review




More information about the License-review mailing list