if a person offers two licenses, and you only need to accept one of them to be licensed, then you should be all set.
If I sue facebook and they countersue, then my defense is simply "i am licensed under BSD". The fact that you offered an additional license (they even call it "additional") does not mean that I am required to accept it when the first license stands alone.
Yes, but Facebook didn't dual-license this, they licensed it under a modified version of the BSD license. So it's that license or nothing. Edit: good point, gcp.
This is a reasonable argument, given the headers says "
* This source code is licensed under the BSD-style license found in the
* LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant
* of patent rights can be found in the PATENTS file in the same directory.
*"
However, the problem you have here is there literally can be no implied license when an explicit one is offered.
You can't say "i take the bsd and implied patent license".
So if you want to take it without the additional rights grant, you can.
But you won't get patent rights, because they have offered them to you explicitly under a different license.
If I sue facebook and they countersue, then my defense is simply "i am licensed under BSD". The fact that you offered an additional license (they even call it "additional") does not mean that I am required to accept it when the first license stands alone.
Right?