|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Well, *patents* are incompatible with FOSS. This is a patent
license. So, duh.
I agree with the SFLC that software should not be
patentable subject matter. Nonetheless, there are patent licenses that are not
merely "compatible" with FOSS, but satisfy the definitions for Free and Open
Source software as well.
You are asking Google to act like an idiot
in an environment where it is being attacked on all sides with patents by
proprietary goon companies determined to destroy FOSS.
I do not
consider engaging in the pursuit of software freedom to be acting like an idiot.
The fact that there may be "goon" companies out to get Google does not mean that
Free Software advocates should redefine their goals.
Google has
made no claims that this is a FOSS license. It's not. The question is, can FOSS
developers rely upon it without sacrificing protections FOSS licenses provide?
And the answer is yes.
One of the protections offered by FOSS
licenses is to be free from field of use restrictions. Since FOSS developers can
not rely upon Google's patent licensing to maintain this protection, I should
think the answer to your question is actually "no".
That's about as
good as it gets, currently, in the ugly patent universe. And as SFLC points out,
this is the best license in existence for this category.
The V
P3/Theora patent license contains no field of use restriction so, no,
neither Google's VP8 Cross License nor their own patent grant
are the best license in existence for this category.
Google has done a
Good Thing with their development and release of the Webm formats; yet their
patent licensing could be improved to be more consistent with the Free Software
and Open Source definitions. It is not unreasonable for FOSS advocates to expect
such improvements take place before offering their full endorsement. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|