… plus a never tried in court possible implicit patent grant. Apache 2.0 would have been a lot clearer.
Wait, what happened to IANAL. Why do you feel so confident about PATENTS. That's pretty untested too (and very strange, uncharted)
-
-
It is pretty explicit, though. Unlike MIT which isn't.
-
Not particularly strange or uncharted. This is similar text (albeit different conditions) as you find in Apache or W3C.
-
Not that similar. But again, "right to use unrestricted" is pretty explicit. Can you find any precedent at all that says otherwise?
-
Again. I'm just channeling what IP lawyers have told me in the past.
-
Fair enough.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

strategy. Those patents, if they exist, still do.