New Licensing Model?

[Charles A. Jolley]

>>     Basically, we are working on a license for the technology that gives
>> people free license (as protected by our patents, copyrights, and
>> trademarks) to use the technology in their products and limited use of the
>> technology's name in relation to their product, unless they sell it for
>> commercial use.  If they sell the product, then they must get their product
>> certified to be compliant by us.


Hi all:
Several people responded to my question regarding my company's licensing
model for our technology [thanks, BTW] with similar thoughts, so I wanted to
respond to all of them with this message.  First off, Mark Rafn suggested
that what I am trying to license could more appropriately be called an
algorithm rather than just a technology.  For the sake of this discussion,
especially as it is related to intellectual property law, I think this makes
a lot of sense.

So, regarding Zeratec's algorithm...our license is concerned with is the use
of this algorithm that governs the basics of how two products communicate.
It is designed to go along side of any other software license or as a
condition of sale, as may be the case in some hardware or software
situations.  So, for example, the operating system we are working on that is
based on this algorithm (called the Exokernel) will be licensed using, say,
GPL, as well as our license which covers only the use of the algorithm.

It sounds like the big issue that exists with the concept that we had was
that it required almost **anyone** who sold a product bound by this license
to get it certified by us.  This included those products licensed under the
GPL.  Of course, this is a problem because the GPL prohibits placing any
restrictions on redistribution that require someone pay for the right,
particularly as it applies to patents.

So...what if we explicitly exclude GPL from the certification requirement?
In other words, if someone creates a product that communicates using our
technology, then they must get it certified first, UNLESS they are licensing
under the GPL.  In any event, the use of our certification mark will still
be restricted only to those people who are actually certified.

Those products that communicate using our algorithm would still be bound by
our license, even if they do release under the GPL.  The difference,
however, is that our license would give royalty-free license to use our
patents if licensed under GPL.  The only constraints that would remain would
be the 'viral' aspect (any derivatives must also be bound by this agreement)
and the restrictions on our trademarks.  Specifically, we will require
people who are not certified to include a statement stating that to be the
case.

What do you think?

-Charles