3 ms·

"by this document" limits the effect such that it doesn't [emphasis added] "PRECLUDE ANY FORM OF PATENT LICENSING or patent forbearance" via other documents/mec

by gojomo 4y ago

"by this document" limits the effect such that it doesn't [emphasis added] "PRECLUDE ANY FORM OF PATENT LICENSING or patent forbearance" via other documents/mechanisms. (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation, as others have helpfully pointed out.)

josephcsible 4y ago
> (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation that others have helpfully pointed out.) Yes, and this seems to be the entire reason that Fedora is revoking approval of the license.
- gojomo 4y ago
  And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that licenses that EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM PATENT FORBEARANCE cannot be considered FOSS." ...I'd have not flagged any apparent textual contradiction – and understood the rationale better. It was the broad, unqualified allegation that CC0's text would "preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance" that created the impression of mismatch between reasoning and literal text. (And note: submission link has changed since I commented from a tiny excerpt of Fontana's announcement, and the full email.)
dragonwriter 4y ago
The problem is that you are arguing about something that is not the issue. The issue isn't “via other documents/mechanisms”, the issue is whether it precludes patent grants that may be necessary to exercises the permissions in the license from being found to be granted by the license. Anything that grants permissions for particular but doesn't rule a grant of specific rights (at issue at the moment, patent, but the same would be true of any other specific rights) necessary to that use is most naturally read as granting all rights the licensor has power to grant necessary to the use explicitly licensed (and also as a claim that the licensor has a right to grant all rights necessary for that use.) If it specifically excludes particular rights that may be necessary to that use, then the license itself is on its face insufficient for the use it appears to grant without a separate license for the other rights or independent evidence that no rights which would be an obstacle are held anywhere else.

by gojomo 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> (It does preclude one particular implied-permission interpretation that others have helpfully pointed out.) Yes, and this seems to be the entire reason that Fedora is revoking approval of the license.

gojomo 4y ago
And if Fontana had written, and LWN excerpted, a statement like... "The reason for the change: Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that licenses that EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM PATENT FORBEARANCE cannot be considered FOSS." ...I'd have not flagged any apparent textual contradiction – and understood the rationale better. It was the broad, unqualified allegation that CC0's text would "preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance" that created the impression of mismatch between reasoning and literal text. (And note: submission link has changed since I commented from a tiny excerpt of Fontana's announcement, and the full email.)

dragonwriter 4y ago

The problem is that you are arguing about something that is not the issue. The issue isn't “via other documents/mechanisms”, the issue is whether it precludes patent grants that may be necessary to exercises the permissions in the license from being found to be granted by the license. Anything that grants permissions for particular but doesn't rule a grant of specific rights (at issue at the moment, patent, but the same would be true of any other specific rights) necessary to that use is most naturally read as granting all rights the licensor has power to grant necessary to the use explicitly licensed (and also as a claim that the licensor has a right to grant all rights necessary for that use.) If it specifically excludes particular rights that may be necessary to that use, then the license itself is on its face insufficient for the use it appears to grant without a separate license for the other rights or independent evidence that no rights which would be an obstacle are held anywhere else.