From b47fa5a48104bc4d8cd70c034c276fff46256207 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Anselmi Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:44:43 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix Patent usage section. Recommend a clear statement of intent rather than pondering what the MIT license might mean. --- content/getting-started/licensing.md | 21 ++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/getting-started/licensing.md b/content/getting-started/licensing.md index 7487bcb..4594d88 100644 --- a/content/getting-started/licensing.md +++ b/content/getting-started/licensing.md @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ One of the major distinctions between licenses is between: the code include contractual law, but that is rarely used for software licenses. 2. Licenses which permit to close the source, i.e. temporarily-open licenses. - These licenses are usually known as permissive licenses. The MIT license or the Apache license belong to this category. - The term "permissive" often causes confusion, because it sounds fair and good to inexperienced people. + These licenses are usually known as permissive licenses. The MIT license, the BSD license, or the Apache license belong to + this category. + The term "permissive" often causes confusion, because it sounds fair and good to unexperienced people. People who contribute to the development of a program released with a permissive license must be aware that the program could become proprietary at any time. For example, when a company hires the original team of developers. @@ -100,17 +101,11 @@ limited versions (crippleware), advertising-supported software (e.g. antivirus), ### Patent usage -Some permissive/temporarily-open licenses like the MIT license do not contain a patent provision granting the users the -right to use their patents. -For example, the code might be licensed under the MIT license, but implements an algorithm which is protected by a patent. -In this case, the license might allow to copy, modify and distribute the code but at the same time does not guarantee -the right to use the patented algorithm. -It is a common argument in favour of the MIT license to claim that no public lawsuit has ever been conducted yet. -Still, the threat to be sued remains, and it can be used to exert pressure. Some, if not most, license disputes moreover -are settled even [before reaching the court](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) and could therefore -leave no trace. -Even Google [avoided the use of the MIT license when developing Android](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses), -presumably because of the missing patent provision. +Some permissive/temporarily-open licenses like the Apache-2.0 license contain a patent provision explicitly granting the +users the right to use their patents. Some, like the BSD 3-Clause Clear license explicitly do not grant the right to use +their patents. And some, like the MIT license, do not mention patents, making it arguable that they [implicitly grant](https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license) +patent rights, or that they [do not](https://web.archive.org/web/20190312190935/http://stlr.org/2018/10/15/the-truth-about-oss-frand-by-all-indications-compatible-models-in-standards-settings/). +We recommend that you use a license with a clear statement so your users know your specific intent. For further information on "patents and free software", head over to [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software).