{"id":380,"date":"2014-12-06T13:55:16","date_gmt":"2014-12-06T10:55:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/?p=380"},"modified":"2014-12-06T13:55:16","modified_gmt":"2014-12-06T10:55:16","slug":"microsoft-open-source-patent-license-bad-flavor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/2014\/12\/06\/microsoft-open-source-patent-license-bad-flavor\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft Open Source Patent License: Bad Flavor?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.msdn.com\/b\/dotnet\/archive\/2014\/11\/12\/net-core-is-open-source.aspx\">Microsoft released the core of its .net framework under a permissive MIT License<\/a>, and readjusted its clocks to fit the new millennium. Until recently, <strong>Microsoft&#8217;s approach toward open source was like its approach to everything else: do what others do, but with our flavor.<\/strong> While most of the world used three major open source licenses: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gnu.org\/licenses\/gpl-2.0.html\">GPLv2<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/opensource.org\/licenses\/MIT\">MIT<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/opensource.org\/licenses\/BSD-2-Clause\">BSD<\/a>, Microsoft favoured the <a href=\"http:\/\/opensource.org\/licenses\/MS-PL\">MS-PL<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/opensource.org\/licenses\/MS-RL\">MS-RL<\/a>: it&#8217;s own flavor of licenses, which, well, were not quite compatible with the existing licensing scheme.<\/p>\n<p>The difference between the &#8220;standard&#8221; MIT\/BSD Licenses, that say &#8220;do whatever you want, just give us credit and waive any liability&#8221; and Microsoft MS-PL that has a statement that says that you cannot use the original software&#8217;s trademarks and that if you take a piece of code from the software, and stick it to your own code, then it has to be also under the MS-PL (section 3(d)), were quite problematic, and it&#8217;s no surprise that no one outside the Microsoft ecosystem used these licenses.<\/p>\n<p>So, last week&#8217;s resolution came as a surprise, and quite an interesting one. Will Microsoft&#8217;s adoption of the MIT License mean that we might see an open-sourced Windows version? I&#8217;d be surprised if we do. <strong>But what&#8217;s not that surprising is that Microsoft decided to add its own flavor again to the MIT License<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>While the .NET framework is released under the permissive MIT license (again: do whatever, just make sure we&#8217;re not responsible), Microsoft decided that it has to specifically add a &#8220;Patent License&#8221;, meaning that it makes sure that its nonexistent property called &#8220;Software Patents&#8221; (that at least in Israel are deemed <a href=\"http:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/?p=179\">highly questionable<\/a>). Microsoft <a href=\"https:\/\/github.com\/dotnet\/corefx\/blob\/master\/PATENTS.TXT\">promises not to sue you over its patents if you use the .NET framework in your product<\/a>. This means, that even if you don&#8217;t acknowledge Microsoft&#8217;s enforceability of these patents, or claim that they don&#8217;t apply, you do acknowledge them when you get a license.<\/p>\n<p>While this patent license applies only when your software is a &#8220;part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime&#8221;; it means that actually you blindly acknowledge on the other hand that these patents exist and that they are enforceable. <strong>This also means that if you interfere or &#8220;infringe&#8221; these patents in any other software you distribute, Microsoft could go ahead and say &#8220;oh, well, he acknowledged our patents here, here\u00c2\u00a0 and here, so he can&#8217;t say that they are unenforceable&#8221;<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>So you see my problem here, right?<\/p>\n<p>[<a href=\"http:\/\/code4wd.com\/2014\/11\/net-license-why-patents-matter\/\">originally published at Code4WD<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, Microsoft released the core of its .net framework under a permissive MIT License, and readjusted its clocks to fit the new millennium. Until recently, Microsoft&#8217;s approach toward open source was like its approach to everything else: do what others do, but with our flavor. While most of the world used three major open [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=380"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":388,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/380\/revisions\/388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2jk.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}