OSD modification regarding what license can require of user

[Mitchell Baker]

There are narrower definitions definitions.  I recall an 80% definition 
in the tax code and  a 90% definition in state corporate codes.  I 
haven't worked with these in years (a change for which I'm grateful), 
but I'm sure they can be found without too much trouble.  I can't recall 
how dense the language for the 80% definition is.  Sometimes the tax 
code is unbearably dense, and sometimes shockingly brief.

There was also a broader definition, using 20% as the threshold for 
control.  I suppose some might like this for the "Your Covered Patents" 
section.  But a lot of companies do investments around this level where 
they don't have control, so it might cause a lot of trouble for 
companies that couldn't comply.

Mitchell

Bruce Perens wrote:

>Mitchell,
>
>A possibly naive question: The text you submitted is a _broad_ definition
>that is in common use. Is there a similar _narrow_ definition as well?
>
>I don't see that this text would be the right way for a quid-pro-quo
>license to define the legal entity in which distribution doesn't happen,
>because that entity would include beta-testers under contract, would it
>not? Maybe even _users_ under contract or NDA?
>
>On the other hand, there are applications in a quid-pro-quo license
>_would_ use this definition, "Your Licensed Patents" comes to mind.
>
>	Thanks
>
>	Bruce
>
>



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3