> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:56 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD > > > On Mar 07, 2017, at 09:07 AM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent > license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is > my opinion, and not a Government position). > > > > It certainly fails a smell test in modern times. However, this is not > something addressed by the OSI board, called out by the OSD, and has > only been ad hoc discussed by folks here. > > > > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are any > OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in the > current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its kind. If there > ARE, then CC0 would not create a precedent situation any worse > than currently exists and approval could move forward. > > > > If there AREN'T, that begs under non-proliferation for any new licenses that > explicitly disclaim patent rights to be found OSD-inadequate, > particularly w.r.t. clauses #1 and #7. Moreover, any license approval for a > new license containing a patent disclaimer (e.g., CC0) would > necessarily require modification or accompaniment by a required patent grant > mechanism (such as ARL's approach) in order to satisfy the > OSD. > > > > Of course, the OSI should still weigh in on this. Either OSD is applied > as-is and patents are part of "the distribution terms", they are > considered separate for historical reasons, or the OSD requires > modification. > > > > > It prevents people from freely modifying the code. > > > > Actually holding a patent does not necessarily prevent modification of code. > Of course, there's doesn't seem to be much value in > modifying the code if one doesn't have the right to use, sell, or export it > but it's technically not prohibited. Even more importantly, such > modification could very well make the code no longer satisfy patent claims, > thus it becoming usable, sellable, etc. again.
You're right of course. My bad. Thanks, Cem Karan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss