5 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.