[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Richard Fontana fontana at opensource.org
Fri Mar 18 22:03:32 UTC 2016

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:50:38PM -0400, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:00:55 -0400
> > From: Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
> > To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> > 
> > The possible issue here is not the absence of patent grants in
> > general, but rather discriminatory imposition of patent licensing
> > requirements (arguably in violation of OSD 5).
> I raised this same discriminatory issue regarding Oracle’s UPL, yet the response then was that neither granting nor denying patent rights has any bearing on OSD conformance.  I still disagree but the point stands that if it didn’t matter for UPL, I’m not sure why it should matter here.

I assume it was the point you made here:

Looking at it now (and looking at the UPL) I don't understand the
discriminatory concern (I agree with Jim Wright's response) - if you'd
like to re-explain I'd be interested.

There's a more general issue here of license conditions that only
apply to some categories of licensees, or apply in some more
burdensome way to some categories of licensees. This came up in
earlier drafts of the OSET Public License in a non-patent context.


More information about the License-review mailing list