For Approval: Educational Community License 1.0
Christopher D. Coppola
chris.coppola at rsmart.com
Mon May 7 18:54:54 UTC 2007
I understand that interpretation exists, but I also understand that
not everyone agrees with it. Relying on the "use" language leaves it
up to interpretation that seems to have generated equally reasonable
opinions on either side of the argument which makes it pretty risky
to depend on. It may be that a court would agree, it may be that a
court would disagree. It may be that it depends on the circumstances
around the contribution. This situation seems risky to me, and it
seems that being explicit has a lot of value. While it may not be as
"potentially" broad, it is clearly specified. I know what I can
reasonably count on.
On May 7, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Christopher D.Coppola wrote:
> > Without approval we'd necessarily need to stay
> > with ECL 1.0 which negates the benefits of our diligent contribution
> > agreement practices and does nothing for patent grants.
> As I mentioned earlier, the word "use" in ECL 1.0 arguably
> constitutes a
> broad patent grant. So from this perspective ECL 2.0 does grant less.
> Matt Flaschen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss