3 ms·
Some people think so. Others aren't so sure. US courts have not yet ruled on it. However, even the people who DO think an implicit grant exists would mostly
by Lazare 10y ago
Some people think so. Others aren't so sure. US courts have not yet ruled on it.
However, even the people who DO think an implicit grant exists would mostly agree that the implicit grant is not sublicensable, which makes it a horrible mess and probably unusable.
An explicit grant is strongly preferable, IF people can agree on the terms. Facebook's terms are on the harsh side, but there's clear advantages to it existing.
- andreyf 10y agoIf you license something under BSD and continue to license under the BSD, the question of sub-licensing seems moot.
- abritinthebay 10y ago> US courts have not yet ruled on it. They sort of have. A patent has to be a major and "dominant" part of the implicitly licensed tech for it to be granted. Basically - all existing case law says that you get some rights from implicit grants but it's also far less than explicit ones like FB's
- andreyf 10y agoNot only does not all of the case law say this, that's not even what that case was about nor what that language said: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
- Lazare 10y agoThanks for the info.
- andreyf 10y agoCareful. I don't know what his motivations are, but the info is misrepresenting both the context and the meaning of the language he references: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA