<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/17/19 10:26 AM, Richard Fontana
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAC1cPGyi75hAUiRrzzjzJObXER=PYW+nJTem0tVa7Mdq_5oYig@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The odd last paragraph should be paused over -- the notable feature is
"if you choose to make your Enhancements available either publicly, or
directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for
such Enhancements", you grant a permissive license which is somewhat
broader than the downstream BSD-style license. What annoys me about it
is, probably due to careless drafting, that it does not appear to
address the case of someone making apparently non-licensed
Enhancements available directly (non-"publicly") to some person other
than LBNL.</pre>
</blockquote>
Wouldn't it just default to whatever the default is for BSD
(inbound=outbound)?<br>
<br>
And isn't the concern erased because it's all conditional anyway, "<i>if</i>
you choose to make your Enhancements available ... without imposing
a separate written agreement ..." then the license-in applies? But
there is a mechanism for avoiding the grant by providing a separate
written agreement?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>