On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>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. 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