3 ms·
This project is under the BSD license, which is equally silent about patent rights to the MIT license, making it ambiguous whether it applies to patents. The p
by comex 10y ago
This project is under the BSD license, which is equally silent about patent rights to the MIT license, making it ambiguous whether it applies to patents. The patent license is on top of that; Facebook's approach is basically strictly more permissive, patents-wise, than typical use of the MIT license. (But not as permissive as the Apache 2 license, which contains explicit patent grants with a "don't sue us" condition that only applies to the specific software being licensed.)
Well, there's some argument that including a patent license makes the other license less likely to be construed as implicitly extending to patents, even if it says "additional". But you really shouldn't be depending on either the MIT or BSD license counting as a patent license.
See also: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...
Edit: I misremembered the scope of the Apache 2 patent license, sorry.
- yladiz 10y agoThat's fair, and I respect Facebook's want to have specific patents language in their licenses. But my main fear is that the language is too broad and taken at face value wouldn't allow any kind of patent infringement to be fought against, regardless of its merits. I also wish that the language was in the license itself rather than as a separate grant because it's potentially confusing. I had a friend I was telling this about didn't know about this at all, and said he's happy that his company has lawyers that review this stuff because he would just copy the license without the separate grant and be done with it, which wouldn't suffice.