Re: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
Stamnes, Michelle writes: It is not logical to say that a license that grants MORE rights than the BSD is not open. Agreed. And yet, we don't have logic to work from, we have the Open Source Definition. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Why are we still fighting 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | the war on drugs when there Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | is a real war to fight? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Intel can't solve those problems but it should be commended for doing what it can (even if it isn't doing everything that we think possible). Yes. Although my one response to this was in the negative, I *do* think it's great that Intel is trying. It's wonderful that Intel is interested in contributing to the wider community some access to their patents. Nonetheless, I think this license can only apply to open source software in the trivial case (no patents). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
There seem to be a number of comments on the BSD+ Patent license we have proposed that claim that the license is not open because it only licenses a specific product; i.e., Linux. First, this is not true. The patent license that is extended is for ANY OS that is licensed under the GPL. It may be Linux or any other OS that is licensed under GPL. Second, and far more fundamental, all of the threads seem to agree: 1. BSD is a copyright only license. 2. BSD grants NO rights to patents. 3. BSD is an open license. It is not logical to say that a license that grants MORE rights than the BSD is not open. If you use the software in an OS licensed under GPL, you also get a patent license on the use of that software. For the sake of example, let's assume that instead of granting the additional value of a patent license from Intel, the proposed license said If you use the software in an OS that is licensed under the GPL, Intel will pay you $100. The license merely provides an incentive for a particular use, but does not prohibit other uses. Now, change the value to being a patent license. That does not change the fact that there is additional value; it is just value of a different form. How is that not an open license? Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software (in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent license; so you are no worse off than with the BSD license. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Stamnes, Michelle wrote: Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software (in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent license; so you are no worse off than with the BSD license. I'm afraid the license is not entirely clear on this point: This license shall include changes to the Software that are error corrections or other minor changes to the Software that do not add functionality or features when the Software is incorporated in any version of a operating system that has been distributed under the GNU General Public License 2.0 or later. Does that mean that the license *only* includes such changes to the software under *only* such operating systems? This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Software and any operating system licensed under the GNU Public License version 2.0 or later if, at the time Intel provides the Software to Recipient, such addition of the Software to the then publicly available versions of such operating system available under the GNU Public License version 2.0 or later (whether in gold, beta or alpha form) causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. It is not clear whether this patent license means the license to make 'bug-fixing/ modifications, or the license before that: Intel hereby grants Recipient and Licensees a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Software, if any, in source code and object code form. If it's the latter, then use is effectively restricted (through patent law, and not copyright law, but I don't think the OSD allows for such distinction). If it's the former, then the right to create derivative works is effectively restricted (again, through patent law and not copyright law). Please remember that the OSI certifies *software*, so - in my opinion - software distributed under this license, whose use or sale infringes upon patent claims licensable by Intel, restricts the user's ability to make derived works unacceptably, and discriminates against persons not using a GPL'd operating system. This means, IMO, that if software whose use or sale infringes upon patents is to be considered OSI Certified Open Source Software, the patent license must also support the OSD. Compare this license to the license a while back that restricted the ability of the user to modify some pay for this software routines: if the copyright holder of that software managed to get a patent for his pay for this software routines, and distributed it under this license, would it be considered OSI Certified Open Source Software? -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
