Nigel Tzeng wrote: So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
[<LER>] But you can redistribute RHEL if you don't modify it. If you modify it, apply a different trademark to distinguish it in the marketplace. No trademark license is needed. Trademarks are easy for open source in that sense. If you don't like Firefox, use Iceweasel. If an explicit patent grant is a requirement for open source should an explicit trademark grant also be required? Does CPAL provide an implicit permission to use trademark given the attribution requirement? [<LER>] Set trademarks aside for now. Assume you won't get a trademark license allowing you to apply someone else's trademark to your unique goods or services. I don't believe that an explicit patent grant is a requirement for open source. On the other hand, I believe an explicit patent grant is important to make software less risky to consumers. That is why I like the W3C form of patent grant rather than the IETF mere disclosure of possible patents. Yet both IETF and W3C standards are implemented in open source. I would not object if OSI made an explicit patent grant a new requirement under the OSD. After all, it is a solid requirement at W3C. But there will be objections.... /Larry From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> > on behalf of Ben Tilly <bti...@gmail.com <mailto:bti...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> > Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> " <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any license of any kind. The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent infringement is a "price". However you are unable to use the software before receiving it, so you do not wind up worse off from having received it. Therefore there is no real price to receiving it. After having received the program, there is clearly a price to violating the license. But the same is true for any license. For example look at the GPL v3. If you distribute a GPL v3 program without appropriate copyright notices as required by clause 4, then your license can be terminated under clause 10, and you will lose the right to continue running the software as granted under clause 2. This is an apparent "price" of the exact same form. Either this patent grant is open source, or no license can qualify. On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu <mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> > wrote: On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com <mailto:henrik.i...@gmail.com> on behalf of Henrik Ingo" <henrik.i...@gmail.com <mailto:henrik.i...@gmail.com> on behalf of henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> > wrote: >The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking >an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate >file with additional terms and conditions, results in a combination which >as a whole is not OSI approved open source license. It is no different >from taking the BSD license and making additions to it within the same >file. In what way is the BSD copyright license impacted by an external patent grant license? How is this different than combining a BSD copyright license and an external trademark license agreement? IMHO it has everything to do with whether patents are in or out of scope for OSI license approval for copyright licenses. >I categorize patent grants with wide reaching termination clauses as >commons-friendly. Like I said, my only regret is that there aren¹t >licenses being used that would be even more wide reaching than this one. That¹s fine as long as there are open source licenses with far more narrow grants or no grants whatsoever like CC0. CC0->ECL v2->Apache->React should all be fine from a OSI license approval perspective. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
