3 ms·
What are you talking about ? > deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribu
by 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 agoYeah 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 agoLooks 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.