Well, you're much more confident about what the MIT license implies than any of the IP lawyers I ever talked to.
-
-
Replying to @tobie
Wait, what happened to IANAL. Why do you feel so confident about PATENTS. That's pretty untested too (and very strange, uncharted)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
It is pretty explicit, though. Unlike MIT which isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Not particularly strange or uncharted. This is similar text (albeit different conditions) as you find in Apache or W3C.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @tobie
Not that similar. But again, "right to use unrestricted" is pretty explicit. Can you find any precedent at all that says otherwise?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Again. I'm just channeling what IP lawyers have told me in the past.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
What's funny, is just that people freaked out because the word patent was explicit. Now that it's hidden, it's all good.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tobie
The previous license placed significant restrictions on the grant. People objected to the restrictions not the granthttp://yehudakatz.com/2017/09/16/facebook-patent-clause-protects-facebook-not-you/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Well, sure but now that you potentially no longer have a grant at all…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have in my hand one right to use the software unrestricted. I'll hang on to that in case Facebook decides to sue me.
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.