3 ms·

Has Microsoft given some sort of explicit patent license for Powershell?

majkinetor 7y ago
Its MIT https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE...
- jononor 7y ago
  That is a no then, as the MIT does not contain an explicit patent grant. So Microsoft could very well sue anyone using Powershell, using patents. We don't know if they would win, as there might (or might not) be some protection in a "implicit" grant that a copyright license give. But it would be a fight most organizations would not be willing to take, and would settle out of - a win for Microsoft in practical terms. It is not long ago since they did this with FAT32 against practically all Android manufacturers. Apache 2.0 would be the permissive license to go for if desiring to guarantee safety from patent issues. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    What are you talking about ? > deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so
    - jononor 7y ago
      Yeah that is the implicit grant. But maybe it is clearer in practice than I though. The Open Source case book regarding patents puts it in "Express but Non-Specific Licenses" https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/ https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/, and Scott K Peterson at Red Hat says its explicitness does not depend on the mention of "patent" https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license
      - majkinetor 7y ago
        Looks like a corner case, but really, if implicit grant is not enough then ANY explicit grant will miss some of the real life moments - you mentioned patents, but probably many more exist or will exist in the future. If somebody pulled this trick on me, and I were a judge, I would punish both laywer and a company he is representing. Its simply emberrasing and belitteling toward human intelect. Also: > the Open Source Initiative has stated its view that all open source licenses implicitly include a patent grant Thx for the info.
  - Proven 7y ago
    > So Microsoft could very well sue anyone using Powershell, using patents. No

Its MIT https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/LICENSE...

jononor 7y ago
That is a no then, as the MIT does not contain an explicit patent grant. So Microsoft could very well sue anyone using Powershell, using patents. We don't know if they would win, as there might (or might not) be some protection in a "implicit" grant that a copyright license give. But it would be a fight most organizations would not be willing to take, and would settle out of - a win for Microsoft in practical terms. It is not long ago since they did this with FAT32 against practically all Android manufacturers. Apache 2.0 would be the permissive license to go for if desiring to guarantee safety from patent issues. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences
- majkinetor 7y ago
  What are you talking about ? > deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so
  - jononor 7y ago
    Yeah that is the implicit grant. But maybe it is clearer in practice than I though. The Open Source case book regarding patents puts it in "Express but Non-Specific Licenses" https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/ https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/, and Scott K Peterson at Red Hat says its explicitness does not depend on the mention of "patent" https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license
    - majkinetor 7y ago
      Looks like a corner case, but really, if implicit grant is not enough then ANY explicit grant will miss some of the real life moments - you mentioned patents, but probably many more exist or will exist in the future. If somebody pulled this trick on me, and I were a judge, I would punish both laywer and a company he is representing. Its simply emberrasing and belitteling toward human intelect. Also: > the Open Source Initiative has stated its view that all open source licenses implicitly include a patent grant Thx for the info.
- Proven 7y ago
  > So Microsoft could very well sue anyone using Powershell, using patents. No