3 ms·
The talk seems to conflate distribution of source code and software licensing. Sometimes code is published for inspection but a license must still be purchased.
by paulsutter 8y ago
The talk seems to conflate distribution of source code and software licensing. Sometimes code is published for inspection but a license must still be purchased. It would be helpful if the discussion isolated rights that are passed on by possession of the source code vs possession of license rights.
- singron 8y agoThe talk is about FOSS, so it's implied that you are distributing source code with a free software license. To me, it seems like some of the content of the talk wouldn't apply with non-free software licenses since there may not be an initial patent license, and therefore the patent wouldn't become exhausted.
- AstralStorm 8y agoCode published for inspection needs a specialized license where it disallows any sublicensing or redistribution to close patent exhaustion. Albeit the interesting part is that it could be contrived as a business relationship still in some cases, causing patent exhaustion for the specific bodies allowed to inspect it. That would be for the court to decide though. Allowing redistribution or sublicense right pretty clearly invokes software patent exhaustion.