Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ploxiln 4081 days ago
Also try to understand that a lot of software engineers, like myself, would rather that the source code license not implicate or involve patents at all.

Let the lawyers argue about the patents; I don't want to accidentally hobble the ones on my side or arm the ones on the other side, I don't want to accidentally harm other open-source contributors, I'd rather not be involved at all.

(In the BSD vs GPL debate I'm pro-GPL, but not GPLv3, because it involves the patents...)
2 comments
dynamic 4081 days ago
I'm a developer as well. And I am politically opposed to software patents and would prefer that software not be patentable.

But I'm confused by your statement that you want the license not to mention patents because you want to leave patent issues to the lawyers. The license isn't software code, it's legal code--it's what the lawyers are arguing about!

If the license doesn't mention patents (and doesn't imply a particular grant of patent rights, which like I said is an open issue), then you haven't chosen "nothing." You've chosen the default: the patent holder retains all rights.

link
ploxiln 4081 days ago
That's right, the default. (but also, see teraflop's comment about ambiguous implied patent license)

It seems that any variation either hurts my defense or comes off as aggressive (which is what happened to facebook).

In a hypothetical situation where the patent language matters, it's total war. Multiple concurrent lawsuits in opposite directions, ITC injunction requests, etc. Maximum pain to make the opponent capitulate. None of these patents are really valid anyway, it's either math or implementation detail. There's no reason or logic here.

Better to make no statement, leave the default unsaid, and stick your head in the sand, it may keep you under the radar of involvement.

link
the_why_of_y 4080 days ago
The problem is, if you bury your head in the sand and leave the patents to the lawyers there's a good chance the lawyers will come after you eventually. Hostile ones, that is.

As an illustrative example of what can happen when some third-party profiteers file for patents on your software while re-selling it themselves, read up on the JMRI project's legal troubles:

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/summary.shtml http://lwn.net/Articles/181261/ http://lwn.net/Articles/294066/

That's why my preference is for licenses that explicitly deal with patents: ALv2, MPLv2, (L)GPLv3.

link