> Imagine, God forbid, that The Rust Foundation goes defunct at some point in the next 100 years, and its IP bought up by the next generation's SCO or Novell or whatever, and they decide to patent the borrow checker and whatever other innovations are in Rust. Do you think that would be a bad thing?
1) I'm not certain the Rust Foundation actually owns the underlying patent IP for the borrow checker.
2) But granting it does, imagine, the foundation or its successors files for a patent years after including that IP in Rust and years after granting two extremely permissive licenses (MIT/Apache 2) for the use of that IP, and tries to enforce their patent rights against your fork, FeO.
3) What exactly is their hope of winning a patent infringement case after granting those extremely permissive licenses?
Don't both MIT and Apache 2 provide a very strong defense against infringement where one is using and modifying the Rust code base (you fork creating FeO)? If you don't like Apache 2's explicit patent grant, Rust of course offers you the option to use MIT's implied grant.
"Any language used by the owner of the patent, or any conduct on his part exhibited to another from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license and a defense to an action for a tort." De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 US 236, 241 (1927).
Can you show me an instance where anything like what you describe has occurred? If not, you should describe precisely how your hypothetical could occur? Because, from where I sit, your theories seem like pure FUD.
1) I'm not certain the Rust Foundation actually owns the underlying patent IP for the borrow checker.
2) But granting it does, imagine, the foundation or its successors files for a patent years after including that IP in Rust and years after granting two extremely permissive licenses (MIT/Apache 2) for the use of that IP, and tries to enforce their patent rights against your fork, FeO.
3) What exactly is their hope of winning a patent infringement case after granting those extremely permissive licenses?
Don't both MIT and Apache 2 provide a very strong defense against infringement where one is using and modifying the Rust code base (you fork creating FeO)? If you don't like Apache 2's explicit patent grant, Rust of course offers you the option to use MIT's implied grant.
"Any language used by the owner of the patent, or any conduct on his part exhibited to another from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license and a defense to an action for a tort." De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 US 236, 241 (1927).
Can you show me an instance where anything like what you describe has occurred? If not, you should describe precisely how your hypothetical could occur? Because, from where I sit, your theories seem like pure FUD.