3 ms·

Read the opening license line for BSD: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" This feels incompatible

Read the opening license line for BSD: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" This feels incompatible with a spontaneous patent claim, because otherwise "use" is not permitted once a patent right is asserted. The notion of open source is under threat from patents being used by the likes of Facebook, who've released BSD code then immediately claimed a special patent license in a parallel that disavowed "redistribution and use" unless the patent license also applied. So we can say that a license that explicitly doesn't include patent permission doesn't meet the 4 freedoms. > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. A patent overrides this. > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. A patent overrides this, at least the second half. > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. A patent overrides this. > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. A patent overrides this. Facebook's React library was an example of this. BSD but with a non-free patent license that ran against those freedoms. So it was not really open source.

spiffytech 4y ago
The BSD license is clear that it's a copyright license. IANAL, but I expect "this isn't a patent license and its terms don't cover our patents" would stand up in court. Which is how we get to the GP's question of implied license.
- kazinator 4y ago
  If the plaintiff seeks to stop the defendent from engaging in "redistribution and use", by invoking their patent, but the plaintiff put a license on the code whose wording allows "redistribution and use" in any form without any restrictions, I don't see how the court could just ignore that.
kazinator 4y ago
I'm not sure a patent would override all those things if it's being asserted by the same entity which put the license on the code. If the patent holder puts a "redistribution and use are permitted", that can be deemed as an IP license in every relevant way, including patent and trademark grant; it's not just copyright. "Use" means carrying out the patented functionality; permission to "use" is tantamount to permission to apply the patented algorithm to one's data to reap its benefit.

spiffytech 4y ago

The BSD license is clear that it's a copyright license. IANAL, but I expect "this isn't a patent license and its terms don't cover our patents" would stand up in court. Which is how we get to the GP's question of implied license.

kazinator 4y ago
If the plaintiff seeks to stop the defendent from engaging in "redistribution and use", by invoking their patent, but the plaintiff put a license on the code whose wording allows "redistribution and use" in any form without any restrictions, I don't see how the court could just ignore that.

kazinator 4y ago

I'm not sure a patent would override all those things if it's being asserted by the same entity which put the license on the code. If the patent holder puts a "redistribution and use are permitted", that can be deemed as an IP license in every relevant way, including patent and trademark grant; it's not just copyright. "Use" means carrying out the patented functionality; permission to "use" is tantamount to permission to apply the patented algorithm to one's data to reap its benefit.