[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 22:39:02 UTC 2018
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:34 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:
> *>>From:* License-review [mailto:
> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL
> *>>Sent:* Thursday, October 18, 2018 3:17 PM
> *>>To:* license-review at lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License,
> Version 1 (SSPL v1)
> >>That said, the implied scope of the patent license is immense, which
> would end up being another reason why people would avoid this license. But
> I didn't read that as a legal flaw.
> I’m not sure that the patent license would be implied, there is an express
> patent grant in AGPLv3, Sec 11, which SSPL uses, unaltered. How this would
> work with the requirements for providing Service Source Code is not exactly
> crystal clear but there certainly is an argument that you must grant to
> everyone a no-charge express patent license to the Service Source Code.
> Whether that’s bug/flaw or feature/advantage is probably a philosophical or
> transaction positional question.
I wasn't clear. You are right, the *grant* is express. It is the massive
*scope* implied by the definition of Service Source Code, including (as I
point out), possibly extending to patents owned by others.
As for flaw/feature, I think the authors intended it to be a feature. I
think that it is just rendered in such a fashion as to make it a bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review