4 ms·
MIT doesn't have explicit patent grant clause.
by zokier 8y ago
MIT doesn't have explicit patent grant clause.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoI was always under the impression that BSD or MIT + patents was Apache2?
- sqrt17 8y agouse Apache-2.0 then. It's longer in text but people are already using it and know what the terms mean. The point of the whole exercise is to use a small set of well-known licenses and keep things out of the hands of lawyers (which is admittedly the opposite of what Blue Oak wants)
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoI mean, explicitly, beyond "companies are upset about hypothetical problems". Has there ever actually been a problem? Say, has anyone ever been sued for patent infringement upon using MIT licensed software?
- tatersolid 8y agoYou should hire lawyers to improve your contracts before the ambiguity in your old ones cause lawsuits. That said, “Blue Oak” is a terrible name and will cause even more hassle than “Apache” when dealing with non-technical folks. Explaining to the CFO that we license <component> to customers under “Apache” terms to avoid internal legal issues for our customers is... hard.
- anseljh 8y agoFun fact: there is also no express patent license in GPLv2. There have been lawsuits on that. I know because I was the lawyer who filed one of them. So...yeah, this problem is not hypothetical.