5 ms·

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

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.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      "consensus among open source lawyers." One person claimed that, but provided no source - when answering a contrary opinion with a source.
      - pedrocr 8y ago
        The source is himself supposedly as one of those in that select group. Other people in the thread consider him an authority as well. He states that that contrary opinion is niche and has been at least partially refuted by new events. From my point of view it's a much better source than yours or mine reading of licenses.

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.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    "consensus among open source lawyers." One person claimed that, but provided no source - when answering a contrary opinion with a source.
    - pedrocr 8y ago
      The source is himself supposedly as one of those in that select group. Other people in the thread consider him an authority as well. He states that that contrary opinion is niche and has been at least partially refuted by new events. From my point of view it's a much better source than yours or mine reading of licenses.