3 ms·
The silly part is that the licensor claims he will not assert any patent rights regarding the code. But someone else might still do that.
by tinus_hn 4y ago
The silly part is that the licensor claims he will not assert any patent rights regarding the code. But someone else might still do that.
- mormegil 4y agoThis. The original argument is sideways. When contributing code, you claim to have written it yourself and you grant a copyright license to this work of yours. You don't claim the contributed code does not infringe on any patent. (How could you?? Normal code contributor has no idea how to check that.) So the only evil plan the CC0 prohibition foils (a patent holder contributes code needing patent license under CC0 and later sues for patent infringement) needs only to be slightly modified: the patent holder asks/hires someone to contribute such code. This person grants all rights using BSD0 but obviously cannot grant a patent license to someone else's patent, so the patent holder can still sue.
- mananaysiempre 4y agoSomeone else might do that anyway, don’t they? (Barring the mutually-assured-destruction clause in Apache-2.0, but even that only works if that someone is simultaneously interested in using the code in question.)
- MichaelCollins 4y agoEven if he properly and legally relinquished any and all patent rights, there is nothing to stop him from layering up and suing everybody anyway in direct contradiction to the patent grant. Presumably all the lawsuits would fail, but harassing others with flagrantly horseshit lawsuits is an industry.