| |||||||||||||
Project Harmony decloaksProject Harmony decloaksPosted Apr 13, 2011 0:39 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)Parent article: Project Harmony decloaks
Also notable is the patent grant: You grant to Us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, irrevocable license under the Patent Claims, with the right to sublicense... That's a bit different to a commercial patent grant. Firstly, you don't get access to the patents of "Us" in return. Secondly, you can't terminate the patent license should "Us" sue you concerning one of their patents. I wonder if either of those terms commonly seen in commercial agreements is worthwhile for a free software agreement. I'd argue that the second term should very much be included.
(Log in to post comments)
Project Harmony decloaks Posted Apr 15, 2011 16:01 UTC (Fri) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link] Firstly, you don't get access to the patents of "Us" in return. Secondly, you can't terminate the patent license should "Us" sue you concerning one of their patents.The first item should be part of the license used by the project as a whole. You would be foolish to sign away patent rights unless you have at least an implicit license to the patent rights of other contributors necessary to use the resulting software. I agree the second part should be a standard component of any patent license or transfer to a commercial party, again with regard to the patents necessary to use the software itself. A blanket license to any and all patents of a commercial enterprise isn't likely unless you have patents to license in return.
|
|||||||||||||