WebM license resolution.

[Chris DiBona]

\Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] wrote:

>
> >> Chris, my personal kudos to you for not inventing a new license.
>  Question:
> >> could the additional IP grant be extended to "Google and WebM
> contributors"
> >> rather than Google alone?
> >
> > No. As others might give us patches, we could be interpreted as providing
> > coverage for their patents,too, which we can't do.
> >
> >
> >> If you will have an Android-style contributor agreement for WebM, all
> contributors
> >> would be granting you sufficient patent rights to extend the IP grant.
> >
> > Sort of, we're reviewing the CLA.
>
> So, today a WebM user gets an explicit patent license from Google for
> Google's code, but nothing
> beyond whatever might be implicit in bare BSD for any code accepted into
> WebM owned by 3rd
> parties.
>

Basically as I understand it, yes, which is why we're going to be super
careful about submissions from external parties.

>
> Your CLA could require contributors to make a Google-like patent statement
> with respect
> to their own code submissions, but of course, you've already thought of
> that....
>

Sure? Or allow us to patent technology that might be in submissions in their
name or ours, there are a lot of options worth considering at the CLA level.




>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100608/f6e86a40/attachment.html>