> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Henrik Ingo > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 6:55 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing? > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org> > wrote: > > - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of > > software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent > > license grants or nonasserts? (This has been done by some other > > companies without significant controversy.) > > This should of course be discouraged. However, I sympathize with this kind > of setup if it is intended to be a proposal for a license that > doesn't yet exist. If Facebook a) intends for the combined license to > qualify as open source, and b) eventually submit it for OSI approval, > then it seems to me this is a natural path towards such a goal.
If it is discouraged, then OSI will need to start accepting more licenses into the fold. I brought up the problems that the US Government has with regards to copyright, which is why we developed a new license based on Apache 2.0. It was roundly criticized as not being necessary, and at this point, I suspect we're probably going to be going with CC0 + Patent release, in much the same way as React has. That will probably cause license fracturing in a way that I don't think OSI or anyone in the Open Source community wants. Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
