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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo