<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 02/17/2012 08:38 PM, John Cowan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120218043822.GA15669@mercury.ccil.org"
type="cite">Patents are *always* an issue with open source. Unless
you have a patent
disclaimer or license from every person or corporation on the
planet, you
are always open to being sued for infringement.</blockquote>
Agreed.<br>
<br>
The question is, what should OSI do about it in approving licenses?
I can't believe it's still tenable to ignore the problem. Requiring
an explicit patent grant in new licenses <i>might</i> be
over-reaching. Being sensitive about disclaimers of patent grants
and their potential to harm developers is probably appropriate.
Understanding the presence of the implied estoppel is necessary.
Being sensitive to things that might not carry that estoppel is
probably appropriate.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120218043822.GA15669@mercury.ccil.org"
type="cite">Similarly, there is always a risk of copyright
recapture under U.S. law,
which explicitly cannot be contracted or disclaimed away.
</blockquote>
You mean in the case of material that was dedicated to the public
domain? I've seen some of this in state law, and there have been
various efforts to bring material that found its way into the public
domain, such as the film "It's a Wonderful Life", back under
ownership.<br>
<pre wrap="">Bruce Perens:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">So, I am reading this as either an abandonment of rights OR acquiescence, but not both.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">John Cowan:
> Patent rights are not abandoned under either circumstance: a dedication to the public domain of the copyright does not apply an abandonment of relevant (or irrelevant) patent rights.
Right. I should have written that it was an abandonment of copyright rights, not an abandonment of rights.
Thanks
Bruce
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>