3 ms·
To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Isn't BSD wid
by rockdoe 5y ago
To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects.
Isn't BSD widely accepted to have an implicit patent license? e.g.: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335 https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335
- SeanLuke 5y agoNo, nor MIT/X11. There is debate as to whether its wording might provide some protection through accident of history, but that's not how the law should work: a proper license is unambiguous.
- xxpor 5y agoIn common law countries, it's nearly impossible to write a legal document that's completely unambiguous. Even if it's unambiguous at the time the document is written, the underlying law could change at any time. Of course that could happen in civil law countries too, but it'd be from a statute being changed.
- SeanLuke 5y agoWhataboutism. There's a massive difference between "no license is 100% unambiguous" and "BSD is maximally ambiguous".