Re: zstd: PATENTS application to copyright
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> wrote:
> Jeff Epler <jepler@unpythonic.net> writes:
>
>> Apparently,
>> https://github.com/facebook/zstd
>> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE
>> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/PATENTS
>
> Thank you for this, and for the complete text of the conditions. It
> allows discussion to be more easily read in the archives of this forum.
>
>
>> Contents of .../LICENSE of this date:
>> BSD License
>>
>> For Zstandard software
>> […]
>
> That is a standard 3-clauses BSD license. It grants all the
> DFSG-required freedoms to every recipient.
>
>> Copyright (c) 2016-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> The “All rights reserved” is legal twaddle AFAICT, because it is then
> immediately contradicted by *granting* some rights to the recipient.
>
> The “Copyright (c) 2016-present” is an overreach. Copyright inheres when
> a work is published – fixed in a medium of expression – not forever into
> the future, whenever the “present” that the document is being read.
>
> Neither of those is a DFSG problem, I believe. They do exhibit a
> troubling disregard for the proper limits to copyright.
>
>
>> Contents of .../PATENTS of this date:
>> Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2
>>
>> "Software" means the Zstandard software distributed by Facebook, Inc.
>>
>> Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software
>> ("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable
>> (subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary
>> Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise
>> transfer the Software.
>
> I'm less familiar with the effects of wording in patent law. This has
> the appearance of granting limited license to exercise patents held by
> Facebook.
>
>> The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and
>> without notice, if you […]
>
> What is “hereunder” intended to mean? No license is granted following
> that text; the only license granted in this document is *above* (prior
> to) this text.
>
> Does it mean “the license granted below”? If so, it appears to be null,
> because there is no such license.
>
> Does it mean “the license granted in this document”? If so, this clause
> is attempting to punish patent attacks with revocation of the patent
> license granted above.
>
>
> This clause is activated when the recipient asserts a proprietary idea
> patent over some other party's use of that idea.
>
> I am quite sure the act of asserting software idea patents is not a
> freedom anyone is guaranteed in free software; indeed, it is violently
> contrary to software freedom.
>
> So, because it does not appear to limit any DFSG freedom, this clause
> appears to me to be no problem for the DFSG.
OK, I understand your point. Thanks for your time.
Reply to: