The Lil License
Hmm. As I understand, the primary purpose here is to have a permissive license with a patent grant. Some problems I see:<p>1. If you&#x27;re actually have patent claims to your name (a minority of people, while every author is ipso facto a copyright holder), you will probably want to use an expressly vetted, narrowly drafted patent grant.<p>2. The way the license is worded, it may ask you to do things that you can&#x27;t do, e.g. if you have the rights to use a patent claim, but not to (sub)license it. (Contrast this with how the Apache license words its patent grant.)<p>3. It&#x27;s not clear how broad the patent grant is. It&#x27;s not inconceivable to read it so that once somebody uses the software, they get an unlimited right to your patent claims, even outside that specific piece of software.<p>4. You may be waiving your right to use software patents for defensive purposes, too.<p>5. There&#x27;s lots of fuzziness in the wording. What are the &quot;usage rights that the author hold on [the software]&quot;? US patent law grants rights to <i>exclude</i> others from making, using, selling, or importing the patented invention; it does not grant a right to exploit the patented invention. (Unlike copyright, which creates an exclusive right for authors to use and distribute the work.)<p>6. How compatible is the license with other licenses with patent grants?