Comment by LeFantome
2 years ago
I do not think so. First of all, the license is clear that it is a “copyright license”. In my view, that calls out the distinction from trademark by exclusion. It would not be a reasonable interpretation to assume a trademark license unless trademark is explicitly mentioned and even less so when the license is explicitly described as a “copyright” license. The license defines “The Software” and, again, I see no reason to infer trademark as being part of that definition.
The license also requires you to include attribution and to declare the copyright of the licensor. So, while you have access to the software, ownership has clearly not transferred. You have a copyright license ( that has to be declared ). Nothing more.
> I do not think so. First of all, the license is clear that it is a “copyright license”
No it doesn't. That's why you can use an MIT-licensed codebase that doesn't have an explicit patent grant and not worry about patent enforcement—it doesn't narrowly constrain itself to copyright.