<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:56 AM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
On 12/6/2019 3:30 AM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:<br>If your meaning is that the patents will block<br>
implementation of similar software that would be under a different open<br>
source license, I agree that's the case. However, that is the case for<br>
any open source licensed software covered by patents no matter what the<br>
license is. </blockquote><div> </div><div>Pam,</div><div><br></div><div>I think you're missing why this is different from other licenses. The problem is that to assure that the data terms are applied to the entire network, they _must_ assert their patents against any interoperable Open Source software that is not licensed under those terms.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In contrast, although a number of Open Source licenses include patent grants, I don't actually know of the licensed patents <i>ever</i> being asserted against other Open Source projects, whether or not they commit the sin of interoperability. But in this case, interoperability must be vigorously prevented.</div><div><br></div><div>And this seems fundamentally hostile to Open Source and, if it's implemented, very divisive and damaging to the community.</div><div><br></div><div>And they could avoid all of this nonsense by having an operational contract for their network, rather than attempting to load this into a copyright license.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks</div><div><br></div><div> Bruce</div><div><br></div></div></div>