3 ms·
What is the legal difference between a license with this clause: > No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed
by mcherm 4y ago
What is the legal difference between a license with this clause:
> No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.
and a license with no clause at all addressing trademark or patent rights? Wouldn't both of those documents leave trademark and patent rights unaffected?
- mlinksva 4y agoOne analysis https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- slavik81 4y agoI particularly like this bit: > The MIT License unquestionably has an express [patent] license. That license is not limited to the granting of any particular flavor of intellectual property rights. The statement of license does not use the word "patent" or the word "copyright." When was the last time you heard someone expressing concern that the MIT License merely had an implied copyright license?