3 ms·
I think the idea is that any code you distribute as a company falls under that patent exhaustion clause. Microsoft distributes the code that someone uploaded to
by est31 8y ago
I think the idea is that any code you distribute as a company falls under that patent exhaustion clause. Microsoft distributes the code that someone uploaded to GitHub to all users of GitHub. Thus they all get patent licenses for any patents involving that code. That's at least the idea. Whether courts will go with it, I doubt, because it would mean that any company that allows people to upload anything, including comment sections, is under the risk that their patents get exhausted.
- AstralStorm 8y agoNot exactly get licenses, but the licensing requirement is voided for code distributed in such a way. That is, suppose Startup Inc. published code related to software patent on GitHub owned by GitHub Inc., to which it has granted license. This means anyone who downloads the code from there, no matter the license, has no licensing requirement (not the same as grant or getting a license). If the code is published under a license that does not specifically exclude a patent grant, it is also patent exhausted. (Of course, if the license prohibits redistribution, GitHub cannot host it for the public.)
- gumby 8y agoThis would only apply to MS patents used by github right? That is, if MS had a patent on, say, making a bird whistle, just uploading a program to GitHub wouldn't give you a license to it. While if MS had a patent on, say, putting line numbers when displaying source code, anybody who uploaded a program to GH that did so would be able to use the technique in the patent?