> OpenThread is by Google, and not the thread group.
Wow. So Google is in the Thread Group, and so is licensed to practice and ship the technology; which they do, in the form of OpenThread, under a permissive licence.
BUT anyone that uses OpenThread for anything at all is exposed to legal action unless they cough up the fees. Is that right?
So this is hard for me to understand: Google's OpenThread code is open to be inspected, and you can contribute to it, under a BSD-like licence; but Thread Group holds the IP, and reserves the right to sue. As always, the patents covering it are not listed, and some of them might be submarines. I don't see why it's called "Open" Thread, if you probably can't even use the library without a Thread Group licence.
I'm sure Thread Group would love to stop Google making OpenThread available, but unless they want to tee-off against Google's legal team over patent infringement, the easier route for them is just threatening everyone else out of using it.
All the combined wealth of every individual who has ever wanted to tinker with Thread is a fraction of Google's warchest.
> I'm sure Thread Group would love to stop Google making OpenThread available
Google is a founding member of the Thread Group. OpenThread exists publicly because it's the only widely available implementation that's shipped in a lot of places. Nordic's SDK, for example, uses OpenThread.
OpenThread is built by and for members of the Thread Group, and used by them. It's fairly clear that Google doesn't care much about anyone else.
> OpenThread code is open to be inspected, and you can contribute to it, under a BSD-like licence; but Thread Group holds the IP, and reserves the right to sue. As always, the patents covering it are not listed, and some of them might be submarines
Sounds like they are trying to have their cake and eat it? Release code on a copy left license to try and gain open source contributions, but also force people to pay if they want to use it by crippling it with patents and some weird licensing BS.
Except no one outside of large corporations already paying for it are going to ever contribute code... how could they, you can't contribute code in a vacuum.
It's not a copyleft licence, it's a modified BSD-style licence. Basically, you can do what you like with it, except (a) delete or replace the licence, and (b) trade on the names of Open Group or it's developers.
> crippling it with patents and some weird licensing BS.
Not to mention that part of the lock-in is that certified implementations MUST validate a certificate from a peer, which MUST have been issued by Thread Group, and they will only issue one to a licensee. That is, it literally won't work unless the implementor has a licence.
Wow. So Google is in the Thread Group, and so is licensed to practice and ship the technology; which they do, in the form of OpenThread, under a permissive licence.
BUT anyone that uses OpenThread for anything at all is exposed to legal action unless they cough up the fees. Is that right?
So this is hard for me to understand: Google's OpenThread code is open to be inspected, and you can contribute to it, under a BSD-like licence; but Thread Group holds the IP, and reserves the right to sue. As always, the patents covering it are not listed, and some of them might be submarines. I don't see why it's called "Open" Thread, if you probably can't even use the library without a Thread Group licence.