Subject: RE: termless copyright and patents
From: simo <>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:02:19 -0400

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 10:58 -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > > Also, as Tom points out, there is a difference in legal terminology
> > > here ([implicit] "license" vs. "covenant not to enforce"), and I
> > > wonder if that doesn't prevent them from being equivalent in important
> > > ways.
> > 
> > This is a very good question, but I see no better solution. But it make
> > sense to have a word of too from a Lawyer (Larry ? :) too known if he
> > thinks the GPLv3 explicit covenant may cover less cases than an implicit
> > one.
> I have never been able to understand the intended scope of so-called
> "implicit" patent grants in the GPL or other open source licenses. At least
> some of what people believe about such licenses may be wishful thinking.

I think the implicit patent grant is that if I give you software X on
which I have patent A and B then I implicitly grant you usage of patent
A and B with that software.

This is what I always thought at least.