[License-review] avoid gray areas?

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:30:25PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Chad Perrin writes:
>  > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 09:03:34AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>  > > Russ,
>  > > 
>  > > >> By Bruce's own logic, we should be telling people to avoid gray
>  > > >> areas.
>  > > >> Thus, if Bruce is
>  > > >> correct, we should deprecate the BSD and many other licenses.
>  > > 
>  > > I don't buy this argument at all.   There's a world of difference
>  > > between a license which does not address patents at all, and one
>  > > which specifically excludes any grant of patent rights.
>  > 
>  > I don't think these two statements are really very closely linked.
>  > 
>  > 1. "Bruce [is] telling people to avoid gray areas."
>  > 
>  > 2. "[A very black-and-white issue applies to CC0.]"
> 
> You are correct. They are not linked at all. You need a third
> statement to link them.
> 
> 3. The BSD, MIT, and many other licenses have gray areas because they
> don't come with patent grants.

Well, yes, this is true.  More specifically:

3. The various BSD licenses, the MIT/X11 License, and many other licenses
have gray areas because they don't come with either patent grants or 
explicit disclaimers of patent grants.

We're in agreement on that, indeed.  I hope you realize that was part of
my point -- or, rather, my point was that this was part of *your* point.
I was just raising an objection to the way the response to your argument
in this case seemed to answer something you didn't actually say.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]