<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear everybody<br>
Thank you again to deeply analyse our last proposal.<br>
<br>
<b>In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"):</b><br>
We confirm that the sentence applies to the IPR on the Software as
defined by the license. It thus does not cover trademarks or
patents. Patents are treated specifically, see Article 5". But we
understand that our sentence could be clearer if we write the
intellectual property rights on the Software as below:<br>
<i>"The Licensee undertakes not to directly or indirectly infringe
the intellectual property rights on the Software of the Holder
and/or Contributors and to take, where applicable, vis-à-vis its
staff, any and all measures required to ensure respect of said
intellectual property rights of the Holder and/or Contributors."</i><br>
Then, it is clear that it is on the software, and not around the
software. Trademark is on the name and patent is on the invention.<br>
<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 07/04/2012 00:36, Simon Phipps a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:CEB0B3EC-4A73-41EF-B027-E0EE9F32C475@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 5 Apr 2012, at 16:42, BAYLE Anne-sophie 174294 wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Message d'origine-----
* In section 6.4 ("JOINT PROVISIONS"), it says:
"The Licensee undertakes not to directly or indirectly infringe the
intellectual property rights of the Holder and/or Contributors on the
Software and to take, where applicable, vis-à-vis its staff, any and
all measures required to ensure respect of said intellectual property
rights of the Holder and/or Contributors."
This is very broad, and (in English) will apply to trademark rights
and patent rights. Is it necessary? There is much disagreement in
the software world about patents, and I don't see why Licensee should
have to go beyond whatever laws already govern it by default. In
other words, what is this clause for?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The sentence applies to the IPR on the Software as defined by the license. It thus
does not cover trademarks or patents. Patents are treated specifically, see Article 5".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
So which "intellectual property rights" do you mean apart from copyright? If two of the three main items usually understood under the term are excluded, it would be better not to use the term at all and to be clear what you're talking about.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
* Similarly, 6.2 ("OVER THE CONTRIBUTIONS") seems redundant:
"The Licensee who develops a Contribution is the owner of the
intellectual property rights over this Contribution as defined by
applicable law."
What concern does this address?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes it's perhaps a little redundant but sometimes it could be a good thing notably to make this license understandable by everybody.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Once again, it's unhelpful as it uses a vague term in a general way.
In both cases, I would very much prefer the term "intellectual property" to be replaced with the rights you are actually addressing.
Thanks,
S.
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>