Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
> deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with.

Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've 
mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent 
licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3
and see also http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Section10.txt), I've found 
the following:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsrp/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml

"[...] IBM will, upon written request, provide a nonexclusive, 
 royalty free patent license, with other reasonable and 
 nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, for those patents issued 
 to IBM which contain claims essential, in IBM's judgment, to 
 implementations of the Specification and for which IBM is able 
 to provide patent licenses (including patents issuing on the 
 published patent applications disclosed above), for implementing 
 the Specification. This patent license is available to all 
 entities. If a party requesting a patent license also has claims 
 essential to the implementation of the Specification (hereafter 
 "Requestor Claims"), IBM will grant this patent license only if 
 the recipient, in return, will grant IBM a reciprocal license, 
 with substantially identical terms and conditions, under the 
 Requestor's Claims. If a party has a license with respect to IBM 
 Essential Claims and acquires, by any means, one or more Requestor 
 Claims and refuses to grant IBM a reciprocal license (with 
 substantially identical terms and conditions) under such 
 Requestor Claims, IBM may suspend or revoke the license IBM 
 granted to such party."

"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: <in the other thread>
[...]
> industry standard software.  I would welcome IBM's commitment 
> to THAT goal as well.  This can perhaps be accomplished if IBM 
> and other companies actively support open-source-friendly patent 
> policies for standards organizations similar to that adopted by 
> W3C, an effort that IBM has conspicuously refused to make 
> outside of W3C.

Well, here's an example that has really nothing to do with W3C.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/meeting-minutes/02-04-18.html

"[...] On the patent

 Cowlishaw: 

       - It's normal business practice. 

       - Benefit: Could make the encoding public early on. 

       - Problem: Does it stop necessary support? 

       - "RAND" licensing it typical, but because it's an encoding, 
         it's more valuable that it's used at all. 

  Delp: This has to get through parent committees. 

  Cowlishaw: At a minimum, do the base requirement for IEEE. Will 
  look into royalty free licensing. "

This is about http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal ("General Decimal 
Arithmetic") and IBM's US Patents 6,437,715/6,525,679 (equivalents 
in Europe and Japan aside for a moment), I guess. Now, here's the
latest:

http://google.com/groups?selm=clcm-20031117-0011%40plethora.net

"[...] IBM has already written the necessary formal letter to the 
 IEEE stating that this will be Royalty Free for implementers of 
 the standard (rather than RAND), though RAND is permitted by IEEE 
 rules."

regards,
alexander.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3