<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Well said Carlo and agreed. (And add one vote to the "No it cannot" box.)</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"> Best,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"> Jim<br><br></div><div><br>On Aug 16, 2017, at 3:14 AM, Carlo <<a href="mailto:carlo@piana.eu">carlo@piana.eu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Larry, all,<br>
<br>
indeed, I have acknowledged that the issue is of minimal
importance in the context of this particular license, due to its
admittedly narrow field of application, where thanks to a wise IPR
policy the patent's problem should not be that relevant, and I
have not asked to withhold approval.<br>
<br>
However, I still keep the point, valid in general and more
relevant as more "patent agnostic" licenses come around, that the
issue whether an open source license can openly exclude patent
rights [0] from the grants and still be called "open source" must
be resolved. <br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
[0] at least those patents relevant to the contribution made and
shared by the copyright holder under the license in hand.<br>
<br>
On 11/08/2017 23:05, Lawrence Rosen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:035201d312e5$8ba910c0$a2fb3240$@rosenlaw.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote
{mso-style-name:emailquote;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0pt;
border:none;
padding:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">I agree with Carlo
about the relevance of patents to open source software. But
some solutions already exist. Some licenses are better than
others. This W3C copyright license is the wrong battlefield
to argue about patents.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">W3C has resolved
the public's patent issues with a wonderful Patent Policy
that already protects both open source and proprietary
software that implements W3C standards. In conjunction with
this new "W3C Software and Document License", that "W3C
Patent Policy" is what open source wanted and is given.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">That is why the
W3C Software and Document License is all we now need. OSI
should please approve it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext">/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> License-review
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org">mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Carlo<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 11, 2017 10:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C
Software and Document License<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Dear Nigel,<br>
<br>
I will stop repeating the same comment (which I myself
received firstly, by the way) when this nonsense of
considering "open source" a copyright-only licensing issue
will come to an end, or, more appropriately, when this
larger and graver nonsense of applying patents to software
would not be gone for good. <br>
<br>
A legal text must be interpreted in the situation where it
applies. If the scenario changes, its interpretation must
change. So be for the OSD, if the "evolutionary"
interpretation is not defeated an insurmountable wording
therein. This is not the case. My reading of the OSD is
perfectly compatible with the text. No need whatsoever to
change the OSD. The OSD says "the *distribution terms* of
open source must comply". Not "the distribution terms under
copyright". The distribution terms. Period. <br>
<br>
How come if you have two sets of rights on the software you
yourself make or modify and distribute, you may sanely say
"take it, this is open open source", and when someone starts
using it you say "hey, but not THAT open, here's a license,
here's a bill for royalties, if you want to continue using
it". "But you have a license!" "Ah-ah! A license on
copyright, not a license on patents!"<br>
<br>
Where is the "without the need for execution of an
additional license"? <br>
<br>
Of course, if somebody else come forward with their own
patent for software they have not created, this would be a
problem of the legal system, not of the license. But if the
license allows a "gotcha" situation by the same developer,
sorry, that's a problem of the license.<br>
<br>
Then you can do as you please, and call "open source" a <i>legal
</i>instrument that only people having signed a patent
license and pay royalties for it can <i>legally</i> use,
modify, distribute. I will still retain the right to think
and say it's a totally foolish and self-defeating position.
Will I be alone or just with the minority? Too bad!<br>
<br>
Brexit showed us that the decision of the majority not
necessarily is the most sane, never mind the most informed
one. Good luck!<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/08/2017 17:51, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Oops.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">My comment is
that there is no red line for patents in the OSD. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Either get the
necessary consensus to change the OSD or stop debating
this in every single Open Source license submission and
holding them up.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">The FACT
remains that non-OSI approved licenses, namely CC0, are
considered Open Source by many open source practioners so
your opinion is not necessarily the majority view and
certainly not the universal view.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Tzeng, Nigel H. <<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Date: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Friday, Aug 11, 2017, 11:45
AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">License submissions for OSI
review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@opensource.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Subject: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Re: [License-review] For
Approval: W3C Software and Document License<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Carlo Piana <<a href="mailto:carlo@piana.eu" moz-do-not-send="true">carlo@piana.eu</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Date: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Thursday, Aug 10, 2017,
6:08 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">To: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@opensource.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@opensource.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Subject: </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Re: [License-review] For
Approval: W3C Software and Document License<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">On 09/08/2017 21:15, <br>
<br>
The scope of a FOSS license is to give permission to
do things with<br>
software. They are *historically* conceived as
copyright licenses<br>
because *historically* that was what drafters
understood it was the<br>
regime under which rights had to be conferred on
software.<br>
<br>
If different rights insist on software, the owner of
those rights who<br>
purports to give permission *must* give those
permission under all the<br>
rights she may have, or the openness test would
miserably fail.<br>
<br>
Otherwise it is like opening one lock of a door,
with the other<br>
remaining closed. The door will not open. So if the
license is a key,<br>
you cannot just say "this key will conditionally
open all the copyright<br>
locks on my doors" and claim that the doors will be
"open doors". If<br>
there are patent locks of yours, the doors will
remain shut. [0]<br>
<br>
A license which only gives copyright licenses but
refuses to do so for<br>
patents is not an open source license in my and many
others' opinion.<br>
It's a public license, it is valid, it has some
scope, but it's not open<br>
source.<br>
<br>
I invite OSI to take a stance once for all as to
this conceptual ambiguity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
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="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>License-review mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>