2 ms·
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-Spec
by 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 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.