Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Re:Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 by ocdtrekkie on Saturday March 09, 2019 @04:54PM (#19348745)

I mean, explicitly, beyond "companies are upset about hypothetical problems". Has there ever actually been a problem? Say, has anyone ever been sued for patent infringement upon using MIT licensed software?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 by anseljh on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @02:14PM (#19371235)

Fun fact: there is also no express patent license in GPLv2. There have been lawsuits on that. I know because I was the lawyer who filed one of them. So...yeah, this problem is not hypothetical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 by tatersolid on Sunday March 10, 2019 @06:59AM (#19351423)

You should hire lawyers to improve your contracts before the ambiguity in your old ones cause lawsuits.

That said, “Blue Oak” is a terrible name and will cause even more hassle than “Apache” when dealing with non-technical folks.

Explaining to the CFO that we license <component> to customers under “Apache” terms to avoid internal legal issues for our customers is... hard.

[ Parent | on HN ]