Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
> If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of the software released, people can very easily sneak in
patent time bombs into the codebase.
> I think their only interaction here is to confirm that the MPL is not
> a DFSG-free license of patents.
Yes. That is the conclusion I get from the thread.
> No consensus was reached on the Nokia Open Source L as far as I can
The patent clauses for MPL and Nokia license are identical.
> I heartily encourage past behaviour of only reacting to patents
> when we must.
This has been the case for patents claimed by X which are implemented
in works copyrighted by Y; not in licenses.
Approving licenses simply because the non DFSG freeness arises from
patents which are not enforced is a bad precedent.
What if Nokia releases something under the MPL?
Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.port5.com