1. 36
  1.  

  2. 7

    What’s unclear about MIT/ISC and patents? I always assumed the answer was a simple no.

    1. 6

      “Unclear” probably just means “would have to be decided in court”.

      US-based lawyers are super happy with an explicit patent grant they can use to defend their client in court, should someone sue for patent infringement.

      1. 5

        The author has a full article on MIT. It comes down to “Neither copyright law nor patent law uses “to deal in” as a term of art; it has no specific meaning in court.” and refers to the following part of MIT:

        to deal in the Software without restriction,

        1. 5

          ISC does not use this terminology. So why did he throw it in one bucket with MIT?

          EDIT: See https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for arguments in favour of ISC.

        2. 2

          I think that’s because MIT doesn’t mention patents explicitly while Apache has this:

          1. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
          1. 2

            There’s an implicit patent grant in these licenses. Given the statement “Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software … is hereby granted” I think it would be hard to argue that the recipient is not given a license to use the patent.

            This only works if the copyright holder also holds the patent. But I (an eminently unqualified non‐lawyer) don’t see what the Apache 2.0 text provides that the ISC text doesn’t. “Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual … patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.”

            What’s really annoying about Apache, besides the deluge of verbiage, is the next sentence: “If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.”

            1. 1

              What’s annoying about the patent pooling? It discourages a sue fest by revoking any patents granted to you by other contributors if you sue users of the software for patents you have granted to the project.

          2. 2

            Note that this is a programmer-lawyer, not just any copyright lawyer. So it’s not like an “outsider’s perspective”, it’s the perspective of someone who programs (and is well in sync with the open source community). That person just happens to also be a lawyer so know exactly what they are talking about.

            Kyle’s past posts on open source licenses are pretty good too.

            1. 2

              I was trying to figure out how to best state that in the title. Technical lawyer felt off to me, programmer-lawyer feels much better ?

            2. 1

              Would have loved to see the CDDL show up here. I guess MPL is close?