4 ms·

Damn. Just when I was interested - a GPL patent-grab license. (Google "implied patent grant") Billions have already been spent redoing GPL software under BSD an

Damn. Just when I was interested - a GPL patent-grab license. (Google "implied patent grant") Billions have already been spent redoing GPL software under BSD and MIT licenses that aren't patent-phobic. Do we really have to do this again?

e12e 8y ago
What? This is under Apache Licence 2.0? https://github.com/google/xi-editor/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/google/xi-editor/blob/master/LICENSE
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  As I just said above, Google "implied patent license". Implied means not explicitly stated, obviously, but as it happens your very source does in the prelude (not license) state the patent grab: "Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code." I've read the license many times. Never helped my blood pressure to do so, though. N.B. - this applies to hardware patents not just software patents. You get to build whatever hardware is needed or helpful in running the software regardless of patents if the owner was foolish enough to contribute to the software.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - e12e 8y ago
    How would donating source code/software that people couldn't legally run be better?
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      They could run it - they'd just have to buy a computer that licensed any necessary patent rights, or bought the chips from those who owned the patents on their innards. (re hardware patents.) BSD projects have always used software that only works on patent-encumbered Instruction Set Architectures of CPUs. I'm fine with requiring contributors to state whenever they are submitting anything patent-dependent, and not accepting code if the tech isn't interesting or useful to users.
      - e12e 8y ago
        How would one ever be safe building on a free software project if it might contain code subject to patents? Say taking a video codec and shipping it as part of an open hardware project? That'd kind of defeat the "no strings attached" re-distribution rights required for recipients to retain the four software freedoms? If you don't care about that part (not encumbering down stream users with licensing issues) - why use free software at all?
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        All code is subject to patents. All GPL code is subject to patents - you don't get to build any machine you want to run your GPL code without licenses UNLESS you made the mistake of contributing to a GPL project. Then anyone can copy your hardware designs for free and sell those machines, too - as long as they include the GPL software. Would courts actually enforce that? The vast majority of corporations act as though they would and won't use or allow contributions by their employees to patent-grab licenses. (The Linux kernel is a special case with "stranded rights" since the kernel can't function alone - which is why Google spent billions to reproduce the GNU libraries with a freer license, but didn't have to replace the kernel at the same time - they're doing that now with the Fuschia project.) Dragonfly BSD, etc, is safe and perfectly usable as long as someone is selling hardware that's licensed, say by Intel or Qualcomm.
        e12e 8y ago
        > All code is subject to patents. Well, yeah. All code is subject to copyright too. But you can avoid having that copyright encumber users by using a Free license. Now why would you not want to free users for patents that pertain only to the code you're giving away/sharing under a free license? If you contribute an image codec, people can safely use that to build on. It will not grant them a patent to your other hw patents, like an ISA or office chair design or image sensing chip. Sure, if you're Fraunhofer living off of mp3 encoding licenses, you might not want to give away what you're making a living off. But then you'd probably not give away a software encoder either. And sure, if you did, you'd probably chose a hostile license that allowed you to keep enforcing your patent. And, if you contribute something else, like a load balancer, and the FSF write something like lame, and you sue the fsf - you won't be allowed to (at no cost) continue to violate patents covered by the loadbalancer, assuming the fsf holds a patent that covers some aspect of that. I still don't see the problem? If you don't want to share code, then.. Don't? But if you do, share in a meaningful way?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
Oh no, someone won't let you build on top of their work then claim the results as your own. GLP recognizes we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Yes, and then prevents almost everyone else from standing on our shoulders. I agree, a solution that solves both freeloading and doesn't grab others' quite separate property would be good - but that's not the GPL that was created, and GPL certainly hasn't prevented freeloading.
pedrocr 8y ago
The implied patent grant is also present in BSD and MIT. At least that was the consensus in the Facebook licensing issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 The reason I've always seen about companies not liking the GPL is that they want to be able to make closed source versions of software. If there was some risk that once you submit code to a GPL project you've donated all your patents to the world it would be a risk with BSD and MIT licensing as well.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  That thread is hardly a consensus, and those putting this view forward seem to badly confuse copyright grants with patent right grants. The 2-clause BSD grants only copyrights in clause one, and disclaims any other grant or warranty in the second clause. I can't imagine how to get from that clause 2 explicit disclaimer of other rights to an implied claim of other rights.
  - pedrocr 8y ago
    The consensus isn't the thread. The consensus is apparently among those that work on these issues professionally. Here's a better subthread that explains it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      I see good evidence for my view, contradiction for yours here. And certainly not consensus. Starting with: "For example, it's considered unclear enough that the ClearBSD license was explicitly created to clarify that it doesn't offer patent grants - jttp://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD" What I find there pro your side is actuallly just the pure confusion of copyright grant with patents. Nobody denied that copyright licenses were being granted.
      - pedrocr 8y ago
        I don't understand what you're saying. Surely the fact that a new license was needed to make sure an implied patent grant exists means that the normal BSD license includes a patent grant. That much is stated in the link I shared: "The BSD license normally includes an implied patent license." It couldn't be clearer. You can disagree with him but that's what's being said and is apparently a consensus among open source lawyers.

e12e 8y ago

What? This is under Apache Licence 2.0? https://github.com/google/xi-editor/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/google/xi-editor/blob/master/LICENSE

Nomentatus 8y ago
As I just said above, Google "implied patent license". Implied means not explicitly stated, obviously, but as it happens your very source does in the prelude (not license) state the patent grab: "Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code." I've read the license many times. Never helped my blood pressure to do so, though. N.B. - this applies to hardware patents not just software patents. You get to build whatever hardware is needed or helpful in running the software regardless of patents if the owner was foolish enough to contribute to the software.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- e12e 8y ago
  How would donating source code/software that people couldn't legally run be better?
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    They could run it - they'd just have to buy a computer that licensed any necessary patent rights, or bought the chips from those who owned the patents on their innards. (re hardware patents.) BSD projects have always used software that only works on patent-encumbered Instruction Set Architectures of CPUs. I'm fine with requiring contributors to state whenever they are submitting anything patent-dependent, and not accepting code if the tech isn't interesting or useful to users.
    - e12e 8y ago
      How would one ever be safe building on a free software project if it might contain code subject to patents? Say taking a video codec and shipping it as part of an open hardware project? That'd kind of defeat the "no strings attached" re-distribution rights required for recipients to retain the four software freedoms? If you don't care about that part (not encumbering down stream users with licensing issues) - why use free software at all?
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        All code is subject to patents. All GPL code is subject to patents - you don't get to build any machine you want to run your GPL code without licenses UNLESS you made the mistake of contributing to a GPL project. Then anyone can copy your hardware designs for free and sell those machines, too - as long as they include the GPL software. Would courts actually enforce that? The vast majority of corporations act as though they would and won't use or allow contributions by their employees to patent-grab licenses. (The Linux kernel is a special case with "stranded rights" since the kernel can't function alone - which is why Google spent billions to reproduce the GNU libraries with a freer license, but didn't have to replace the kernel at the same time - they're doing that now with the Fuschia project.) Dragonfly BSD, etc, is safe and perfectly usable as long as someone is selling hardware that's licensed, say by Intel or Qualcomm.
        e12e 8y ago
        > All code is subject to patents. Well, yeah. All code is subject to copyright too. But you can avoid having that copyright encumber users by using a Free license. Now why would you not want to free users for patents that pertain only to the code you're giving away/sharing under a free license? If you contribute an image codec, people can safely use that to build on. It will not grant them a patent to your other hw patents, like an ISA or office chair design or image sensing chip. Sure, if you're Fraunhofer living off of mp3 encoding licenses, you might not want to give away what you're making a living off. But then you'd probably not give away a software encoder either. And sure, if you did, you'd probably chose a hostile license that allowed you to keep enforcing your patent. And, if you contribute something else, like a load balancer, and the FSF write something like lame, and you sue the fsf - you won't be allowed to (at no cost) continue to violate patents covered by the loadbalancer, assuming the fsf holds a patent that covers some aspect of that. I still don't see the problem? If you don't want to share code, then.. Don't? But if you do, share in a meaningful way?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago

Oh no, someone won't let you build on top of their work then claim the results as your own. GLP recognizes we're standing on the shoulders of giants.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Yes, and then prevents almost everyone else from standing on our shoulders. I agree, a solution that solves both freeloading and doesn't grab others' quite separate property would be good - but that's not the GPL that was created, and GPL certainly hasn't prevented freeloading.

pedrocr 8y ago

The implied patent grant is also present in BSD and MIT. At least that was the consensus in the Facebook licensing issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 The reason I've always seen about companies not liking the GPL is that they want to be able to make closed source versions of software. If there was some risk that once you submit code to a GPL project you've donated all your patents to the world it would be a risk with BSD and MIT licensing as well.

Nomentatus 8y ago
That thread is hardly a consensus, and those putting this view forward seem to badly confuse copyright grants with patent right grants. The 2-clause BSD grants only copyrights in clause one, and disclaims any other grant or warranty in the second clause. I can't imagine how to get from that clause 2 explicit disclaimer of other rights to an implied claim of other rights.
- pedrocr 8y ago
  The consensus isn't the thread. The consensus is apparently among those that work on these issues professionally. Here's a better subthread that explains it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    I see good evidence for my view, contradiction for yours here. And certainly not consensus. Starting with: "For example, it's considered unclear enough that the ClearBSD license was explicitly created to clarify that it doesn't offer patent grants - jttp://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD" What I find there pro your side is actuallly just the pure confusion of copyright grant with patents. Nobody denied that copyright licenses were being granted.
    - pedrocr 8y ago
      I don't understand what you're saying. Surely the fact that a new license was needed to make sure an implied patent grant exists means that the normal BSD license includes a patent grant. That much is stated in the link I shared: "The BSD license normally includes an implied patent license." It couldn't be clearer. You can disagree with him but that's what's being said and is apparently a consensus among open source lawyers.