[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Jan 21 01:48:18 UTC 2016

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:38:39PM +0000, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> Nigel Tzeng suggested substituting a more general disclaimer (for example " No other express or implied licenses are granted");  I can see some merit to that as an alternative disclaimer.  I'm curious of the mailing list's thoughts on this sort of disclaimer.  I know it is something that is often put in proprietary licenses, although even those sorts of disclaimer don't necessarily preclude an implied license being found (at least in the US, per the Transcore decision and certain progeny).  As to whether this disclaimer might impact GPLv2 compatibility, I think not (given the finding that the Clear BSD -- with a complete disclaimer of all patent licenses -- is GPLv2 and GPLv3 compatible: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd  )

I agree that it probably would not have an impact on GPLv2
compatibility. I also do not think it has any relevance to the issue
of OSD conformance. I would prefer not to see it mainly because it's
an additional feature, not in the Apache License 2.0 patent provision,
adding incremental complexity to a very simple license, that may be
more likely to raise doubts among potential users (whether about GPL
compatibility, policy soundness, or both) than would otherwise be the


More information about the License-review mailing list