[IanKelling]

> Once their is an explicit grant, any implicit grant you would have gotten is extinguished.

Citation needed. And if you aren't planning to sue over software patents, then the author is clearly correct that this is strictly better than BSD/MIT alone.

[DannyBee]

"Citation needed."

Seriously? This is basic IP law 101. No license can be implied if there is an explicit license.

I actually started gathering cite lists for you like I normally do, but instead, i'm not going to in this case. If you really want to argue this point, please go to google scholar and spend the 2 minutes it will take to pull up 100 cases on this.

I don't feel it's fair to argue about a thing without taking the very small amount of time to familiarize yourself with it.

If you find cases that say otherwise, awesome, let's talk about it!

Otherwise, this is like arguing about baseball and asking someone to cite rules because you want to argue that swinging at the ball and missing isn't a strike.

"then the author is clearly correct that this is strictly better than BSD/MIT alone."

They actually are not, as the scope of the implied license is much broader than the scope of the explicit grant here.

[IanKelling]

Edit: afaik, implicit patent license for free software licenses are unproven in court. It's an interesting idea, and I actually hope it's the case that everyone is getting an implied patent license that will hold up in court. Thanks for the information, I wish I had incorporated it in my original comment.

[yladiz]

> sue over software patents

The grant isn't specifically about software patents, it's about all patents.

[IanKelling]

Fair enough.