Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):

> I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus,
> wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me,
> that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party
> withdrew the submission.

You're welcome.  My perception at the time was that everyone on
license-review agreed that CC0 was OSD-compliant, because even if the
public domain dedication doesn't achieve the desired effect in
particular jurisdictions, the fallback permissive terms (clause 3)
clearly was in itself OSD-compliant.

But, now that I think about it, we never fully discussed whether the
lack of either implied or explicit patent licences was a problem,
because of CC0's submission being suddenly withdrawn -- whether because
the submitter didn't want to further burden CC's full plate of work,
whether it was because OSI certifying a non-software licence was a bit
silly, or for some other reason, we may never know.

> That discussion actually referenced another prior submission, the MXM
> License related to the MPEG standard reference implementation
> (http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-patent-agnostic)
> where the main reason for submitting the license was to carve out the
> patent license from MPL. This submission was also not approved and was
> cited as precedent when discussing the CC0 license.

I suppose we can speak in loosely metaphorical terms of 'precedents'
on license-review, though licences are considered on their individual
merits, and we're not bound to repeat prior mistakes.

My recollection was that license-review participants were suggesting CC
drop that exclusion to make it, in our collective opinion (to the extent
there is such a thing) a better licence.  We never reached the question
of whether it would be approved without such an improvement.

My understanding of the larger patent problem is that any software 
with a severe enough patent-encumbrance problem that recipients cannot 
exercise the full set of open source rights is _not open source_ even if
the licence would otherwise so suggest.  But yes, if we'd proceeded, I'd
probably have concurred with adverse views such as the one Tom Calloway
expressed about MXM Public License in 2009:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2009-April/000720.html
The point was made particularly obvious by the submission coming from
MPEG-LA, which is, after all, pretty much entirely about patents.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 12/13/16, 12:07 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
 wrote:

>If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent
>language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that.
>
>Richard

The point is that the implementers of the open source policy within the
federal government doesn¹t care that CC0 isn¹t OSI approved.  Nor do they
have standing to submit CC0 anyway so Creative Commons would have to do so.

Why would they bother?  The FSF already recommends CC0 for public domain
release and so does the US government (or a notable part of it anyway).

I also doubt that any patent grant drafted by US government lawyers would
be broad but necessarily nuanced so it wouldn¹t fare any better than NOSA
v2.0.  I¹m curious, when is the next board meeting and are you going to
allow an up or down vote on NOSA at that meeting?

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 04:17:03PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source
> license to the US Government.
> 
> 
> https://code.gov/
>
> "We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of
> explicit patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment
> that CC0 meets the definition of open source. There are other
> standard open source licenses which also do not explicitly address
> patents."

The concern that some on license-review had about CC0 was not about
lack of explicit patent language (which is characteristic of many
OSI-approved licenses) but rather the explicit statement: "No
trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned,
surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document."  (I
don't think anyone raised any concerns about the trademark side of
that sentence.)

> Creative Commons recommends that CC0 be used with a patent grant for
> Code.gov which the government folks at 18F are considering.
> 
> "Patents are a thing, and Creative Commons' comment on the White House
> source code policy 
> recommends an
> explicit patent disclaimer, something we're considering at 18F.²
> 
> https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/258

If the US government standardizes on some particular explicit patent
language to use with CC0 I would welcome OSI review of that. 

Richard
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

MIT may be considered a single legal entity but is composed of many different 
colleges, laboratories, etc with their own office of tech transfer.   While 
supporting open source is valuable so is supporting entrepreneurs and IP 
policies at research universities will have to support both.  Universities, 
researchers and entrepreneurs depend on IP protection for both revenue and 
grants.

The issues are covered in the ECL v2 discussions from 2006 and apply also to 
the USG.  They are covered on page 12 of the report:

"Two outputs of the Summit addressed these concerns: the ECL 2.0 outbound 
license and the new form of institutional contribution agreement. These 
revisions were designed to accommodate concerns about the reach of the patent 
license provisions in the contributor agreement. The patent license provision 
was modified so that no license would be granted to patents developed by anyone 
other than the author of the contribution, and also to recognize the 
possibility that there may be funding agreements or other prior commitments 
that limit the institution's flexibility to grant a license.

While these licenses represent progress, they also reflect some policy 
decisions by participating institutions that bear long-term thought. For 
example, a license to patents that arise only out of the work of contributors 
to the project does not cover patents that arise out of other work at the 
university, reflecting a choice to protect the ability of individual inventors 
at the university, and the ability of the university itself, to benefit from 
the commercialization of the patent, where licensing these patents in 
connection with community projects may be beneficial to the community as a 
whole."

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3076/Licensing_and_Policy_Summit_Report_2007.p<https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3076/Licensing_and_Policy_Summit_Report_2007.pdf?sequence=1=y>df

I don't have any software patents.  I don't support software patents.  But I am 
very very disinclined to give away another researcher's software patents just 
because I open sourced code and my OTT didn't realize that it tread on a patent 
that someone else at the university created.  ECL v2 is designed to make this 
impossible to do accidentally.

From: License-discuss 
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>>
 on behalf of John Cowan <co...@ccil.org<mailto:co...@ccil.org>>
Reply-To: License Discuss 
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Date: Monday, December 12, 2016 at 5:47 PM
To: "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" 
<lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
Cc: License Discuss 
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?


On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen 
<lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> wrote:

If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent 
licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me.

Agreed.  I only mentioned this hypo to defend my claim that if MIT can't keep 
track of what they have licensed to whom, the word "incompetent" is fit for 
purpose, not in any specifically legal sense but in the sense of not being 
ordinarily prudent in the management of their property.  MIT would get a short 
sharp shock if they tried to sell the same piece of real estate to two 
different purchasers on the grounds that proper records were too expensive to 
maintain.

[] I would tell Yoyodyne to take up their dispute with MIT. I'm not a 
party. The worldwide open source user community is not a party to some secret 
exclusive deal between Yoyodyne and MIT.

Now this I do not understand.  If Yoyodyne is the exclusive licensee, then 
surely it has the right to sue/enjoin you as a user of their patented 
technology, and your claim to have a subsequent license from the former patent 
holder isn't going to help you, particularly if that former patent holder 
disclaims it.  This follows from the fact that if Charlie writes a program that 
unknowingly infringes Alice's patent and then allow Bob to use it, Alice can 
take action against either Bob or Charlie.  In this case, MIT is Charlie, and 
the fact that MIT originally handed over the patent to Alice shouldn't matter: 
when Alice asks for one more nickel, Charlie won't be able to get off the train.

I know that it's not typical for a patent holder to sue Bobs who merely use a 
patented article that they obtain from a non-licensed manufacturer, but that's 
a matter of it being economically inefficient to sue a huge list of known and 
unknown customers, not a derogation of their right to do so.

--
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan
co.

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

With or without OSI approval CC0 appears to be an accepted open source
license to the US Government.


https://code.gov/

"We understand OSI's reservations (which relate to the lack of explicit
patent language), but are comfortable with our assessment that CC0 meets
the definition of open source. There are other standard open source
licenses which also do not explicitly address patents."

Creative Commons recommends that CC0 be used with a patent grant for
Code.gov which the government folks at 18F are considering.

"Patents are a thing, and Creative Commons' comment on the White House
source code policy 
recommends an
explicit patent disclaimer, something we're considering at 18F.²

https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/258

The React license appears to be in line with this strategy.  copyright
license + a patent license.


On 12/13/16, 8:49 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
 wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
>> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
>>
>>> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
>>> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
>>
>> As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
>> accurately summarise its substance:  We were in the middle of a
>> conversation with the submitter about whether CC would consider removing
>> CC0's blanket exclusion of all patent rights including implied grants,
>> when the submitter withdraw the licence from the review process -- but
>> there's no reason to think approval would have been denied, otherwise.
>> There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant.
>
>I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus,
>wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me,
>that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party
>withdrew the submission.
>
>That discussion actually referenced another prior submission, the MXM
>License related to the MPEG standard reference implementation
>(http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-pa
>tent-agnostic)
>where the main reason for submitting the license was to carve out the
>patent license from MPL. This submission was also not approved and was
>cited as precedent when discussing the CC0 license.
>
>henrik

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Henrik Ingo]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
>
>> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
>> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.
>
> As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
> accurately summarise its substance:  We were in the middle of a
> conversation with the submitter about whether CC would consider removing
> CC0's blanket exclusion of all patent rights including implied grants,
> when the submitter withdraw the licence from the review process -- but
> there's no reason to think approval would have been denied, otherwise.
> There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant.

I would have to disagree on the part that there was any consensus,
wide or otherwise, but you're correct, and thanks for reminding me,
that technically the issue was unresolved as the submitting party
withdrew the submission.

That discussion actually referenced another prior submission, the MXM
License related to the MPEG standard reference implementation
(http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-patent-agnostic)
where the main reason for submitting the license was to carve out the
patent license from MPL. This submission was also not approved and was
cited as precedent when discussing the CC0 license.

henrik
-- 
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):

> Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
> precisely because it did not grant a patent license.

As someone who was part of that conversation, I feel the above doesn't
accurately summarise its substance:  We were in the middle of a
conversation with the submitter about whether CC would consider removing
CC0's blanket exclusion of all patent rights including implied grants,
when the submitter withdraw the licence from the review process -- but
there's no reason to think approval would have been denied, otherwise.
There was a wide consensus that CC0 is very clearly OSD-compliant.

(CC0 is by design not a software licence in the first place, but that's
a different subject.)

-- 
Cheers,"It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
Rick Moen  than think your way into a new way of acting."
r...@linuxmafia.com-- Jerry Sternin 
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

John Cowan wrote:

> I know that it's not typical for a patent holder to sue Bobs who merely use a 
> patented article that they obtain from a non-licensed manufacturer, but 
> that's a matter of it being economically inefficient to sue a huge list of 
> known and unknown customers, not a derogation of their right to do so.

 

In any event, I won't any longer lose sleep over this hypothetical. MIT is a 
friend of mine. I hope they help me if I'm sued. :-)

 

Which doesn't address the question: "Views on patent licensing?"

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of John Cowan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:48 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

 

If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent 
licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me.

 

Agreed.  I only mentioned this hypo to defend my claim that if MIT can't keep 
track of what they have licensed to whom, the word "incompetent" is fit for 
purpose, not in any specifically legal sense but in the sense of not being 
ordinarily prudent in the management of their property.  MIT would get a short 
sharp shock if they tried to sell the same piece of real estate to two 
different purchasers on the grounds that proper records were too expensive to 
maintain.

 

[] I would tell Yoyodyne to take up their dispute with MIT. I'm not a 
party. The worldwide open source user community is not a party to some secret 
exclusive deal between Yoyodyne and MIT.

 

Now this I do not understand.  If Yoyodyne is the exclusive licensee, then 
surely it has the right to sue/enjoin you as a user of their patented 
technology, and your claim to have a subsequent license from the former patent 
holder isn't going to help you, particularly if that former patent holder 
disclaims it.  This follows from the fact that if Charlie writes a program that 
unknowingly infringes Alice's patent and then allow Bob to use it, Alice can 
take action against either Bob or Charlie.  In this case, MIT is Charlie, and 
the fact that MIT originally handed over the patent to Alice shouldn't matter: 
when Alice asks for one more nickel, Charlie won't be able to get off the train.

 

I know that it's not typical for a patent holder to sue Bobs who merely use a 
patented article that they obtain from a non-licensed manufacturer, but that's 
a matter of it being economically inefficient to sue a huge list of known and 
unknown customers, not a derogation of their right to do so.


-- 

John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org 
<mailto:co...@ccil.org> 

Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;

Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;

Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;

Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.--Tao 33 (Bynner)

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[John Cowan]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:

If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent
> licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me.
>

Agreed.  I only mentioned this hypo to defend my claim that if MIT can't
keep track of what they have licensed to whom, the word "incompetent" is
fit for purpose, not in any specifically legal sense but in the sense of
not being ordinarily prudent in the management of their property.  MIT
would get a short sharp shock if they tried to sell the same piece of real
estate to two different purchasers on the grounds that proper records were
too expensive to maintain.


> [] I would tell Yoyodyne to take up their dispute with MIT. I'm not a
> party. The worldwide open source user community is not a party to some
> secret exclusive deal between Yoyodyne and MIT.
>

Now this I do not understand.  If Yoyodyne is the exclusive licensee, then
surely it has the right to sue/enjoin you as a user of their patented
technology, and your claim to have a subsequent license from the former
patent holder isn't going to help you, particularly if that former patent
holder disclaims it.  This follows from the fact that if Charlie writes a
program that unknowingly infringes Alice's patent and then allow Bob to use
it, Alice can take action against either Bob or Charlie.  In this case, MIT
is Charlie, and the fact that MIT originally handed over the patent to
Alice shouldn't matter: when Alice asks for one more nickel, Charlie won't
be able to get off the train.

I know that it's not typical for a patent holder to sue Bobs who merely use
a patented article that they obtain from a non-licensed manufacturer, but
that's a matter of it being economically inefficient to sue a huge list of
known and unknown customers, not a derogation of their right to do so.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.--Tao 33 (Bynner)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

John, my responses below. This is not legal advice! :-)  /Larry

 

From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:58 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com 
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

 

Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by 
any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge. 
Instead they said simply: "Here is this copyrighted work. Use it. It is open 
source."

 

Then how does MIT know that it hasn't granted exclusive patent licenses to the 
same patent to both Yoyodyne Inc. and Soylent Corp.?  If they have no proper 
records, that would be a pretty pickle for all three.

 

[] MIT's problems with "exclusive patent licenses" are for them to resolve 
with their exclusive licensees. I'm concerned only with their promises to the 
public under the open source MIT license, and that includes my right to *use* 
that software. 

 

If Yoyodyne or Soylent sue MIT because they had previous exclusive patent 
licenses or contracts, that is court fun for them. It doesn't involve me.

 

And since a patent is specifically the right to prevent use by anyone else, how 
can they say "Use it" when they mean "If you use it and Yoyodyne sues you for 
infringement of our (original) patent, it's your problem"?

 

[] I would tell Yoyodyne to take up their dispute with MIT. I'm not a 
party. The worldwide open source user community is not a party to some secret 
exclusive deal between Yoyodyne and MIT. 

 

/Larry

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[John Cowan]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:

Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required
> by any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can
> be huge. Instead they said simply: "Here is this copyrighted work. Use it.
> It is open source."


Then how does MIT know that it hasn't granted exclusive patent licenses to
the same patent to both Yoyodyne Inc. and Soylent Corp.?  If they have no
proper records, that would be a pretty pickle for all three.

And since a patent is specifically the right to prevent use by anyone else,
how can they say "Use it" when they mean "If you use it and Yoyodyne sues
you for infringement of our (original) patent, it's your problem"?

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Kill Gorgun!  Kill orc-folk!  No other words please Wild Men.  Drive away
bad air and darkness with bright iron!   --Ghan-buri-Ghan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Henrik Ingo]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen  wrote:
> Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
> equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

I just wanted to catch this email client malfunction above: It was
obviously not me who said the above.

(No worries, it happens, just wanted to set record straight.)

henrik


-- 
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

John Cowan wrote:

> what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses 
> they have issued? Apprarently so.

 

Competence wasn't the real issue. The legal and technical effort required by 
any large organization to avoid incompatible patent license grants can be huge. 
Instead they said simply: "Here is this copyrighted work. Use it. It is open 
source."

 

Nowadays, software patents are harder to obtain and even those who work in 
universities, research organizations and large companies want their software to 
be more fully open source with broader patent grants and lower patent risks to 
the public. Most now use the Apache or MPL or GPLv3 licenses. 

 

The subject of this thread is "Views on React licensing?" It should be "Views 
on patent licensing?"

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of John Cowan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:29 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com 
<mailto:si...@webmink.com> > wrote:

 

Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not 
identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there.

 

I don't, but it was on one of the OSI mailing lists during the discussion of 
the Brode license (which ended up not being approved).  The Brode license 
provided that any pre-existing patent grant by MIT pre-empted rights granted 
under the license, which a lot of us really didn't like -- what, is MIT so 
incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses they have issued? 
Apprarently so.   At that point several of us pointed out that the much older 
MIT license already contained a universal patent grant; the MIT folks said "We 
never meant it to."


-- 

John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org 
<mailto:co...@ccil.org> 

We call nothing profound that is not wittily expressed.

--Northrop Frye (improved)

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[John Cowan]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not
> identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there.
>

I don't, but it was on one of the OSI mailing lists during the discussion
of the Brode license (which ended up not being approved).  The Brode
license provided that any pre-existing patent grant by MIT pre-empted
rights granted under the license, which a lot of us really didn't like --
what, is MIT so incompetent they haven't kept track of what patent licenses
they have issued? Apprarently so.   At that point several of us pointed out
that the much older MIT license already contained a universal patent grant;
the MIT folks said "We never meant it to."

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
We call nothing profound that is not wittily expressed.
--Northrop Frye (improved)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

Henrik Ingo wrote:

MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent 
to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

 

I also would like to see a reference to that written statement. But I believe 
it to be true only if it means:

 

. . . does *not* grant *an additional* patent license. 

 

The patent right to *use* that legally acquired software is an implied patent 
grant for all software licensed in ordinary commerce, but this does not 
necessarily include a patent license for derivative works or other unintended 
uses.

 

It has long been believed by many of us that universities, research 
institutions, and other large patent holders are quite comfortable with the 
short BSD and MIT licenses because they are safe copyright-only licenses. Those 
licenses do not implicate their vast patent portfolios for derivative works or 
other uses. 

 

Is that on record by them? Or simply assumed by those of us who believe that 
implicit and unwritten patent promises don't exist (except for the right to use 
that software unmodified). Can I really take any of MIT's patents now 
implemented in MIT-licensed open source software and create derivative works 
involving those (or related) MIT patents?

 

Quite frankly, I believe the Apache and MPL licenses are much better. They do 
contain written patent promises, and so are safer and explicitly more generous. 

 

The BSD and MIT licenses are okay if all you really care about are copyrights.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:19 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:05 PM, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org 
<mailto:co...@ccil.org> > wrote:

 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi 
<mailto:henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> > wrote:

 

Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
that the BSD license is also a patent license.

 

MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent 
to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

 

Do you have a citation to support that please? A quick web search did not 
identify one, but obviously it's a big web out there.

 

Thanks,

 

S.

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Alex Rousskov]

On 12/12/2016 10:05 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
>> that the BSD license is also a patent license.

> MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
> equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

While MIT's current opinion is obviously important, it does not resolve
the question of whether a given license text (including the license text
called the "MIT license") grants a patent license. In fact, the opinion
of "many" license users might be more important here than the opinion of
the license author. Ultimately, only the courts can resolve this ambiguity.

Alex.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, John Cowan wrote:

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo  wrote:

  Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
  that the BSD license is also a patent license.


MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise equivalent 
to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.


Is there a link to this?  I've not found anything similar when I've 
looked, though I've made the same claims, in particular in reference to 
recent attempts by fraudsters to claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto so as to 
claim patent rights to his inventions (which were implemented in 
BSD-licensed works he published in ~2009).


Brian

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[John Cowan]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Ingo 
wrote:

Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
> that the BSD license is also a patent license.
>

MIT is on record as saying that the MIT license, which is otherwise
equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, does *not* grant a patent license.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Higglédy-pigglèdy / XML programmers
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Henrik Ingo]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H.  wrote:
> On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
>  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?

Many people, including significant producers of BSD software, believe
that the BSD license is also a patent license.

In this context it is not acceptable to use an open source license
that grants a patent license, and then add a separate "grant" which in
fact limits and is narrower than the BSD license. In more general
terms, you cannot take an OSI approved license, add your own
limitations, and still claim being open source. (You may or may not
be, but the end result is certainly not OSI approved.)

Note that I'm stating a general principle here, while at the same time
I'm of the opinion that the patent retaliation clause in the React
patent grant is in my opinion a good thing.

> How is this different than combining a BSD copyright license and an
> external trademark license agreement?

If an external trademark license agreement would place requirements on
the users of open source software that are in conflict with OSD, such
a combination would also be unacceptable. Arguably, the attempts at
various badgeware licenses are a good precedent on this topic.

On the other side, organizations like Red Hat and Mozilla protect the
integrity of their own trademarks - and arguably even their users - by
asserting that some trademarks can only be present in software
releases actually made by themselves. In practice this does not limit
the openness / freedom of the software. As evidenced by the existence
of CentOS and Iceweasel, it is a simple task to just change that
trademarked name to your own when forking the code.

Speaking of BSD... Clause #3 in the BSD license is an early historical
principle of asserting the same principle: People should release
software in their own name.

> IMHO it has everything to do with whether patents are in or out of scope
> for OSI license approval for copyright licenses.

Patents are of course in scope for OSI license approval process, are
usually considered as part of every review of new licenses, and most
of the commonly used open source licenses have clear and explicit
clauses about patents.


> That¹s fine as long as there are open source licenses with far more narrow
> grants or no grants whatsoever like CC0.

Good to remember that CC0 is not an OSI approved open source license,
precisely because it did not grant a patent license.

henrik


-- 
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Joshua Drake]

>
> So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested,
> redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat.  _And_ all
> of the software is open source.
>
>
Case in point, CentOS did it for *years* before RH started sponsoring them.

JD

>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Simon Phipps]

One observation on this whole topic.

The OSD is a checklist for evaluating licenses as open source, rather than
a guide to the available freedoms of the software to which it is applied,
even if in most cases those are close to the same thing.

To Larry's raising of OSD 7: it has to be taken in that light. OSD 7 deals
with the situation where a license might have effects predicated on
completion of a licensing process elsewhere. For example, a license that
required completion of an NDA, or the securing of a support agreement, or
compliance with a trademark license, should not pass OSD 7.  But license
terms applied after the fact are surely outside the scope of the approval
process?

If OSI wants to get into the business of certifying that software is open
source, rather than that licenses are, it will need a new process...

S.
-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):

> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
> license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
> 
> Red Hat's trademark license fails this provision as badly as you could want.

Last I checked, every source code RPM in RHEL is genuinely open source
except for _non-software_ SRPMs redhat-logos and anaconda-images.  Those 
non-software RRPMs turn out to have mildly restrictive proprietary
licensing, requiring that all commercial redistribution respect a
company-issued trademark-usage policy on the company Web site.

Compiling the OS does not, fortunately, require the specific contents of
those SRPMs (RH-branded image files, IIRC).  Substituting different
contents and then compiling gets you an RHEL rebuild from identical
souce -- e.g., CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc.

So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested,
redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat.  _And_ all
of the software is open source.  

When this came up in the early 2000s, I FAQed it.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html


(I found the upthread barrage of rhetorical questions a waste of time
and unproductive, FWIW.)

-- 
Cheers,"It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
Rick Moen  than think your way into a new way of acting."
r...@linuxmafia.com-- Jerry Sternin 
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

Ben Tilly wrote:
> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from 
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software 
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license 
> shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

 

Red Hat's trademark license fails this provision as badly as you could want.

 

No, it doesn't. Go ahead and aggregate Red Hat's open source software to your 
heart's content as OSD #1 permits. 

 

Just don't call your aggregation "RHEL", although you are authorized to say 
this:

 

"The open source components of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are also in this TILLY 
software. Those open source components are available to you for free as 
described in our NOTICE file accompanying this TILLY version."

 

/Larry

 

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Ben Tilly]

Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

Red Hat's trademark license fails this provision as badly as you could want.

The issue is the same as the one that arose for Debian (whose free software
guidelines are the inspiration for the OSD) with regards to Mozilla
trademarks.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian for what
happened next.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>
wrote:

> So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot
> redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
>
> 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?
>
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf
> of Ben Tilly <bti...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM
> To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Cc: "henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi" <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>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
>> <henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of 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
>> 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
>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

Nigel Tzeng wrote: 

So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?

 

[] 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?

 

[] 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

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute 
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?

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?

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

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Ben Tilly]

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. 
wrote:

> On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
>  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
> 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

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Lawrence Rosen]

OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for 
software:

 

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is 
redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those 
parties.

 

I assumed "the rights" referred to here are only "copyright rights." Before OSI 
approved a license in the old days, some government agencies and universities 
complained because they had other, more complicated, patent rights to 
distribute that might require or engage "additional" non-copyright licenses. At 
that time, nobody insisted that an open source license also include patent 
rights.  

 

We never fully thought that through, which is why we are still talking about 
this problem for government and university software years later!

 

As a customer, I personally would prefer an explicit patent license within my 
open source copyright license. I like Apache's patent provision for that 
reason. I would like governments and universities to patent things only on the 
assumption that both copyright and patent rights will explicitly be licensed 
under a single OSI-approved license so that the software can be useful as well 
as open.

 

Am I reading this OSD #7 correctly? Would the dear departed Antonin Scalia have 
considered this the "original intent" of the authors of that one-sentence OSD 
#7 provision?

 

/Larry

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:01 PM
To: henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

 

On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, " 
<mailto:henrik.i...@gmail.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20Henrik%20Ingo> 
henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"

< <mailto:henrik.i...@gmail.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> 
henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of 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 

CC0->approval

perspective.

 

___

License-discuss mailing list

 <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> License-discuss@opensource.org

 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> 
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

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
 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
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[John Cowan]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Henrik Ingo 
wrote:

Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent
> grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD.
>

Inevitably so, since the BSD license family either grants no patent rights
(if you read it literally) or grants all rights (if you interpret the magic
word "use" as referring to patents).

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
One of the oil men in heaven started a rumor of a gusher down in hell.  All
the other oil men left in a hurry for hell.  As he gets to thinking about
the rumor he had started he says to himself there might be something in
it after all.  So he leaves for hell in a hurry.--Carl Sandburg
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Henrik Ingo]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H.  wrote:
> On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
>  henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana 
>>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.
>
> React is BSD and therefore already open source.
>
> As far as I can tell the OSD doesn¹t explicitly address patents.
> Heartache with CC0 wasn¹t based on compliance with the OSD.  Any concerns
> with React likewise.

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.

Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent
grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD. (I appreciate the
patent grant precisely tries to clarify that uncertainty, but even
then the practice of making additions to open source licenses should
be discouraged, and is only ok if the intent is to submit the new
whole as a new license for OSI certification.)

>>> - should Facebook be encouraged to seek OSI approval for the React
>>>   license including the patent license grant?
>>
>>Yes. As far as I can see, the BSD + additional stuff should be a
>>single file and single license, and OSI approved.
>
> Why not just use Apache?  Because Facebook wants a competitive advantage.
> I don¹t see how Facebook is any more trustworthy than any other
> corporation nor do I see any difference between Oracle, Facebook, Google
> or Microsoft that isn¹t a CEO change away.  Sun was very pro-open source
> until it went out of business and was acquired by Oracle.
>
> Patent truces favor the big guys and have zero impact on patent trolls.  I
> see little need to "allow terms where those companies actually
> contributing open source software have an equal or even stronger position
> in patent suits² because the level of contributions changes over time,
> sometimes rather quickly.
>

The React license, when used as a generally approved open source
license, of course wouldn't be written in a way where Facebook gets a
competitive advantage. It would be written in a way where whoever
publishes open source - especially useful and popular open source -
would get the same competitive advantage. In particular, small guys
can enjoy the competitive advantage by making their own small
contributions to the React ecosystem (or any other software project
adopting same license).

Also, since the React license does allow recipients to do counter
suits in your hypothetical case where FB has turned into a patent
aggressor, I just don't see the merits of your argument at all.


> I believe that license terms should be non-discriminatory and range from
> more business-friendly terms to more commons-friendly terms so there is a
> wide range of applicable open source license for all business cases.

I categorize patent grants with wide reaching termination clauses as
commons-friendly. Like I said, my only regret is that there aren't
licenses being used that would be even more wide reaching than this
one.

henrik




-- 
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
 wrote:


>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana 
>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.

React is BSD and therefore already open source.

As far as I can tell the OSD doesn¹t explicitly address patents.
Heartache with CC0 wasn¹t based on compliance with the OSD.  Any concerns
with React likewise.

>> - should Facebook be encouraged to seek OSI approval for the React
>>   license including the patent license grant?
>
>Yes. As far as I can see, the BSD + additional stuff should be a
>single file and single license, and OSI approved.

Why not just use Apache?  Because Facebook wants a competitive advantage.
I don¹t see how Facebook is any more trustworthy than any other
corporation nor do I see any difference between Oracle, Facebook, Google
or Microsoft that isn¹t a CEO change away.  Sun was very pro-open source
until it went out of business and was acquired by Oracle.

Patent truces favor the big guys and have zero impact on patent trolls.  I
see little need to "allow terms where those companies actually
contributing open source software have an equal or even stronger position
in patent suits² because the level of contributions changes over time,
sometimes rather quickly.

I believe that license terms should be non-discriminatory and range from
more business-friendly terms to more commons-friendly terms so there is a
wide range of applicable open source license for all business cases.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Henrik Ingo]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana  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.

> - does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise
>   OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not
>   be considered open source?

My view is clearly no. To me these objections seem similar to people
claiming that GPL is unfair, not not as free as permissive licenses,
because it does not allow them to use GPL licensed code in certain
ways that they would want to. Tough luck, you don't get my sympathies.

Technically it seems to me the argument against the React patent grant
is that a license must only list conditions applying to the specific
piece of software at issue, e.g. contained within a single github repo
or tar file. I note that in the reality of today, this opinion seems
to purposefully argue for as narrow a patent retaliation clause as
possible. Possibly the people (which I don't know) arguing this has
such an agenda?

The reality of today is that software is commonly distributed in very
small pieces. A framework like React is likely to grow not as a single
repository, but as an ecosystem of multiple small modules (was it
something like trim() that caused such a mess in npm recently?), each
version controlled and distributed separately, each with their own
license file, however, most of them using the same license. It is IMO
a perfectly valid view to say that when you participate in this
commons as a whole, such as by downloading and using for free multiple
modules of such a commons, you must enter into a patent truce with
that community as a whole, not just refrain from suing the particular
implementation of some trivial function like trim().

We should also consider that the narrow view would in fact favor more
closed source companies suing companies publishing lots of software as
open source. (E.g. Oracle vs Google, or Microsoft vs Everyone).
Companies not publishing (majority of their software as) open source
would enter patent disputes with a stronger hand, since they don't
give away anything themselves, but their patent aggression targets
have given away right to counter sue for all of their IPR except at
most for some specific piece of code at issue. IMO it is in the
interest of OSI and the FOSS community to allow terms where those
companies actually contributing open source software have an equal or
even stronger position in patent suits.

In addition to the fact that OSI has historically approved such patent
clauses, I'd also want to list as "similar in spirit" precedent the
AGPL §13. To achieve its activist goal, the AGPL requires you to
distribute not just any AGPL code covered by the license, but also
regular GPL code if used in the same work.

Speaking of GPLv3, at the time it was drafted I remember I was hoping
FSF would put into it similar or even stronger "global patent truce"
kind of patent retaliation clause and I was disappointed it didn't. If
you ask me, it would be within the OSD for GPL to say essentially: If
you assert patents against any GPL licensed software, you've lost your
license (maybe even copyright license?) to use any GPLd software from
anyone in the world. Probably my position is rather extreme then?

> - if the React patent license should be seen as not legitimate from an
>   OSI/OSD perspective, what about the substantial number of
>   past-approved (if now mostly obsolete) licenses that incorporated
>   patent license grants with comparably broad termination criteria?

Such a view would therefore be contradictory with precedent.

> - should Facebook be encouraged to seek OSI approval for the React
>   license including the patent license grant?

Yes. As far as I can see, the BSD + additional stuff should be a
single file and single license, and OSI approved.

henrik
-- 
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Eli Greenbaum]

On 2016-12-02 6:26, Richard Fontana wrote

> does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise
> OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not
> be considered open source?

I argued here that the scope of the patent termination provision is 
inconsistent with the non-discrimination ideals of open source:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/37-4/GREENBAUM.37.4.pdf   (page 1335)

More interestingly, I wondered here what the patent termination provisions 
would practically accomplish. I think these issues are also important to 
consider when assessing the propriety of the patent termination provision: 

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1637=iplj  
(page 43)

-Eli
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:26:03PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 
> The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the
> licensing of React

Another reference: Facebook has published a brief FAQ on what it calls
the "Facebook BSD+Patents license":
https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Jim Jagielski]

Personally, I am conflicted with the idea of exact conditions
and requirements of a LICENSE not being fully specified in
the LICENSE itself. It almost seems like a way to "get around"
at least OSI approval, plus it adds (IMO) confusion. It is
quite possible to have an OSI approved licensed s/w package
be made "non-open source" by careful crafting of the PATENTS
file, which bothers and concerns me.

> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Richard Fontana  wrote:
> 
> 
> The OSI has received several inquiries concerning its opinion on the
> licensing of React [1], which is essentially the 3-clause BSD license
> along with, in a separate file, an 'Additional Grant of Patent Rights'
> [2].
> 
> The Additional Grant of Patent Rights is a patent license grant that
> includes certain termination criteria. These termination criteria are
> not entirely unprecedented when you look at the history of patent
> license provisions in OSI-approved licenses, but they are certainly
> broader than the termination criteria [or the equivalent] in several
> familiar modern licenses (the Apache License 2.0, EPL, MPL 2.0, and
> GPLv3).
> 
> The 'Additional Grant' has attracted a fair amount of criticism (as
> did an earlier version which apparently resulted in some revisions by
> Facebook). There was a recent blog post by Robert Pierce of El Camino
> Legal [3] (which among other things argues that the React patent
> license is not open source). Luis Villa wrote an interesting response
> [4].
> 
> What do members of the license-discuss community think about the
> licensing of React? I see a few issues here:
> 
> - does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise
>  OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not
>  be considered open source?
> 
> - 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.)
> 
> - if the React patent license should be seen as not legitimate from an
>  OSI/OSD perspective, what about the substantial number of
>  past-approved (if now mostly obsolete) licenses that incorporated
>  patent license grants with comparably broad termination criteria?
> 
> - should Facebook be encouraged to seek OSI approval for the React
>  license including the patent license grant?
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> [1] https://facebook.github.io/react/
> 
> [2] https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
> 
> [3] 
> http://www.elcaminolegal.com/single-post/2016/10/04/Facebook-Reactjs-License
> 
> [4] http://lu.is/blog/2016/10/31/reacts-license-necessary-and-open/
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> 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

Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard about the React licensing yet.  Thanks.

> The 'Additional Grant' has attracted a fair amount of criticism (as
> did an earlier version which apparently resulted in some revisions by
> Facebook). There was a recent blog post by Robert Pierce of El Camino
> Legal [3] (which among other things argues that the React patent
> license is not open source). Luis Villa wrote an interesting response
> [4].

Mr. Pierce’s first criticism point about the grant itself being unnecessary is 
spot on to me.  One cannot "use the software” without implying a patent 
license; and the BSD-styles have such an incredibly well-established industry 
understanding that (to me) it’s ludicrous to consider it could be interpreted 
any other way.  I would very much like to know what [profanity] company would 
try to pull such a stunt as plaintiff.

The only utility of React’s PATENT file is the rather broad retaliation.

> What do members of the license-discuss community think about the
> licensing of React? I see a few issues here:

Conflicted.

> - does the breadth of the React patent termination criteria raise
>  OSD-conformance issues or otherwise indicate that React should not
>  be considered open source?

At best, it could be argued as some form of implicit discrimination (#5) or 
revocation of right to redistribute (#1).  Retaliating against an “any" 
plaintiff vs only a specific class of plaintiff (e.g., Apache 2.0), though, 
isn’t very compellingly different.  Seems like a stretch to me.

> - 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 is also a direction that has been discussed and is being pushed by some of 
the White House (code.gov ) and other Gov't lawyers.

In cases like “CC0 + patent grant”, it may make sense given CC0 explicitly says 
there’s no patent grant. (Yes, I know CC0 is not (yet) an OSI license.  That 
should change.)  In the case of the implicit permissives, though, I think it’s 
very bad practice.  Creates unfounded FUD and license proliferation motivation, 
counterpart licenses explicitly with/without a patent grant.

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss