[Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative Certification for GPL 3.0]

[Smith, McCoy]

If the issue here is the express patent license language in GPLv3, best
place to raise that issue is at gplv3.fsf.org (although the scope of the
express patent license is one that is currently much commented on and
discussed)

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Temeles, Jr. [mailto:dtemeles at nvalaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:50 AM
To: 'License Discuss'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett wrote:

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license termination

Russ Nelson replied:

> If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about it?

DAT Responds:

The patent license issue is one of the most contentious hurdles to
adoption
of "open source" software and I see this as being a major issue in the
near
future in legal departments throughout the land.  The original open
source
software licenses failed to address the patent license issue -
essentially
because there were little or no software patents.  Then open source
software
licenses (e.g., IBM's) began extending express patent licenses to those
patent claims incorporated in the licensed software, but only to the
extent
the licensed software utilized the claims at the time the initial
version of
software was released.  Now, open source licenses are essentially trying
to
eliminate the effect of software patents altogether.  For example, the
GPLv3
provides an express patent grant to all patent claims owned or licensed,
now
or in the future, by a party distributing covered software.  This
license
appears to extend to all versions of the software and all licensees of
the
software.  The license applies regardless of whether: i) the version of
the
software released by the distributing party actually incorporated
features
covered by the claims; ii) the licensee is a downstream user of the
distributing party (i.e., the licensee is using the version of the
software
distributed by the distributor or by a sublicensee of the distributor)
or
the licensee obtained a version of the software from a party either
upstream
from the distributing party or on a different fork altogether; or iii)
the
patent claims apply to software, hardware or some other unrelated
technology.  Is a license that requires such a grant consistent with the
definition of open source according to OSI?  If so, should it be?  I
think
these are legitimate issues for us to waste a few keystrokes on...

Dave
David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemeles at nvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
intended
recipient, please notify David A. Temeles, Jr. immediately at either
(703)
354-7905 x 230 or at dtemeles at nvalaw.com, and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:17 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification
for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett writes:
 > a) the fact that license-proliferation archive suggests that there's 
 > been no activity since last September, and 

I'm a little frustrated by that, too.  The discussions were always
intended to be among a small group, to prevent lobbying on behalf of
one license or another.  I thought it would happn on
license-proliferation, which is how and why I set it up.  Instead, the
committee has used a CC list.  Once the committee's results are
accepted by the OSI board (which should happen soon ... very soon),
they will be published, and THEN the fighting will begin.  Did I say
"fighting"?  I meant "discussion".

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license termination

If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about it?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | A computer without
Python
is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU without
memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs, but you can't
do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything useful with
it.