[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Reply to: