3 ms·
> basically all this has done is remove explicit granting of patents If that were true, then why would they write all those blog posts saying that the BSD+Pate
by jnbiche 9y ago
> basically all this has done is remove explicit granting of patents
If that were true, then why would they write all those blog posts saying that the BSD+Patents was "for their protection". They even repeated it here. It's pretty clear that the patent grant was asymmetric, but not in the direction you're suggesting here.
- abritinthebay 9y agoOh it works both ways. It's the opposite of the Apache 2 grant for example (which is extremely liberal, and I like it) but that's also exactly what you'd expect from many large companies. There's a reason that BSD/MIT is preferred by companies vs Apache 2 (which has been adopted, yes, but much less). It's because - just like here - it preserves all their patent rights. So yes, you now have less protection but FB has just the same if not more. Don't get me wrong: the patents grant wasn't a great solution but it solved specific problems and concerns on both sides that BSD by itself doesn't even try to address and alternatives (like Apache 2) only address half of.