3 ms·

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to real

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

nirvdrum 15y ago
That's the biggest reason I opt for v2 of the Apache license. Similar liberties with fewer liabilities.
halostatue 15y ago
What license would you recommend instead, for those of us who prefer not using share-alike licenses (e.g., the GNU GPL)?
- ajross 15y ago
  The Apache license is generally considered to be the most bullet-proof of the non-copyleft open source licenses. It's what Big Corporations generally use when they don't use the GPLv2. The MIT and BSD text is significantly shorter and less formal.
tingletech 15y ago
As I understand it, this is exactly why the contracts and grants people where I work like it...
- cpeterso 15y ago
  What is the consequence of using an open-source license without patent release? Does that mean that if your employer open-sourced some software that contained patented IP, then people must obtain a license from your employer? And what happens in the reverse situation, where a third-party contributor commits code that contains patent-protected IP?
  - tingletech 15y ago
    Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user. No warranties expressed or implied. "as is" -- use at your own risk. My employer has over 3800 active US patents and 3600 active foreign patents. I just hack code in the library, and I like to share it. As far as I know, none of the code I write is based on any patented IP -- but who is to say some professor on one of our campuses isn't doing research that somehow relates to what I'm working on in some way that could potentially infringe? The projects I work on that are Copyright my employer don't usually have third party commits; under BSD they retain copyright to their contribution and I guess we accept it "AS IS/NO WARRANTIES". but even under apache license 2.0 or educational community license 2.0 someone can't license rights they don't have. There is always a risk that a "forth" party might make a claim that the third party contribution is infringing the forth party's patent. (views are my own and do not represent my employer)

The MIT license has no patent release. I think this alone should eliminate it for all but the most basic of projects. Yet the author doesn't even seem to realize this.

nirvdrum 15y ago

That's the biggest reason I opt for v2 of the Apache license. Similar liberties with fewer liabilities.

halostatue 15y ago

What license would you recommend instead, for those of us who prefer not using share-alike licenses (e.g., the GNU GPL)?

ajross 15y ago
The Apache license is generally considered to be the most bullet-proof of the non-copyleft open source licenses. It's what Big Corporations generally use when they don't use the GPLv2. The MIT and BSD text is significantly shorter and less formal.

tingletech 15y ago

As I understand it, this is exactly why the contracts and grants people where I work like it...

cpeterso 15y ago
What is the consequence of using an open-source license without patent release? Does that mean that if your employer open-sourced some software that contained patented IP, then people must obtain a license from your employer? And what happens in the reverse situation, where a third-party contributor commits code that contains patent-protected IP?
- tingletech 15y ago
  Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user. No warranties expressed or implied. "as is" -- use at your own risk. My employer has over 3800 active US patents and 3600 active foreign patents. I just hack code in the library, and I like to share it. As far as I know, none of the code I write is based on any patented IP -- but who is to say some professor on one of our campuses isn't doing research that somehow relates to what I'm working on in some way that could potentially infringe? The projects I work on that are Copyright my employer don't usually have third party commits; under BSD they retain copyright to their contribution and I guess we accept it "AS IS/NO WARRANTIES". but even under apache license 2.0 or educational community license 2.0 someone can't license rights they don't have. There is always a risk that a "forth" party might make a claim that the third party contribution is infringing the forth party's patent. (views are my own and do not represent my employer)