[License-review] avoid gray areas?
perrin at apotheon.com
Sat Mar 3 04:44:25 UTC 2012
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:30:25PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Chad Perrin writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 09:03:34AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > Russ,
> > >
> > > >> By Bruce's own logic, we should be telling people to avoid gray
> > > >> areas.
> > > >> Thus, if Bruce is
> > > >> correct, we should deprecate the BSD and many other licenses.
> > >
> > > I don't buy this argument at all. There's a world of difference
> > > between a license which does not address patents at all, and one
> > > which specifically excludes any grant of patent rights.
> > I don't think these two statements are really very closely linked.
> > 1. "Bruce [is] telling people to avoid gray areas."
> > 2. "[A very black-and-white issue applies to CC0.]"
> You are correct. They are not linked at all. You need a third
> statement to link them.
> 3. The BSD, MIT, and many other licenses have gray areas because they
> don't come with patent grants.
Well, yes, this is true. More specifically:
3. The various BSD licenses, the MIT/X11 License, and many other licenses
have gray areas because they don't come with either patent grants or
explicit disclaimers of patent grants.
We're in agreement on that, indeed. I hope you realize that was part of
my point -- or, rather, my point was that this was part of *your* point.
I was just raising an objection to the way the response to your argument
in this case seemed to answer something you didn't actually say.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
More information about the License-review