5 ms·

I understand why Microsoft would issue a "patent promise" rather than a bona fide license (the issuer of a promise can play games with its interpretation, where

I understand why Microsoft would issue a "patent promise" rather than a bona fide license (the issuer of a promise can play games with its interpretation, whereas courts get to interpret a license), but why Red Hat? If the folks at RH are 100% dedicated to Free Software, why not place their patents under something like the Defensive Patent License? https://defensivepatentlicense.org https://defensivepatentlicense.org

ungamed 9y ago
They already have, its called the open invention network, which uses similar theories iirc.
- purpleidea 9y ago
  OIN is a private company, not a 501c3 or even a 501c6 ! Not saying they're a good or a bad company, but they don't legally serve the public interest-- that's what a 501c3 is for.
bonzini 9y ago
One difference between the RH patent promise and the DPL is that the patent promise only extends to open source/free software, released under a license recognized by either OSI or the FSF. Would that be possible with a license? But maybe it's just a historical reason.
everybodyknows 9y ago
The above website shows the most recent patent having been added in 2014. Why the poor uptake?
giancarlostoro 9y ago
I wonder how the DPL is compared to the MS-PL which is more BSD-like and does mention what happens if someone makes a patent claim against the code, they basically forfeit the right to using any of the authors own patented code / solutions, ie the entire code base probably becomes useless legally speaking. https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL I always found it silly when some projects with patents dual license as BSD and one other odd license, and depending on usage of code they relicense it when there's already licenses like the MS-PL. That's just my opinion anyway, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. I just stay away from weirdly licensed projects though.

ungamed 9y ago

They already have, its called the open invention network, which uses similar theories iirc.

purpleidea 9y ago
OIN is a private company, not a 501c3 or even a 501c6 ! Not saying they're a good or a bad company, but they don't legally serve the public interest-- that's what a 501c3 is for.

bonzini 9y ago

One difference between the RH patent promise and the DPL is that the patent promise only extends to open source/free software, released under a license recognized by either OSI or the FSF. Would that be possible with a license? But maybe it's just a historical reason.

everybodyknows 9y ago

The above website shows the most recent patent having been added in 2014. Why the poor uptake?

giancarlostoro 9y ago

I wonder how the DPL is compared to the MS-PL which is more BSD-like and does mention what happens if someone makes a patent claim against the code, they basically forfeit the right to using any of the authors own patented code / solutions, ie the entire code base probably becomes useless legally speaking. https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL I always found it silly when some projects with patents dual license as BSD and one other odd license, and depending on usage of code they relicense it when there's already licenses like the MS-PL. That's just my opinion anyway, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. I just stay away from weirdly licensed projects though.