MS-RL equivalents?

[Chris Travers]

On Nov 21, 2007 2:30 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > I read the MS-RL differently than you.  I think it only addresses the
> > patents that a contributor has which read directly on that
> > contribution.  I.e. if contributor A's patch infringes in contributor
> > B's patent, I don't think the MS-RL provides any license to that
> > patent.
>
> I disagree.  The phrase "contribution in the software or derivative
> works of the contribution in the software." implies to me that both
> would be included, even if contributor A's patch is /after/ B's.

You need to read this in context with the definitions.

The part you are referring to states:
"(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the
license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its
*licensed patents* to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale,
import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software
or derivative works of the contribution in the software.[emphasis
mine]"

Note that this only covers "licensed patents" defined as:
' "Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read
directly on its contribution.'

This is actually quite narrow.  While the definition of a contribution
seems broad:
'A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or
changes to the software.'

The definition of "contibutor" suggests that this only applies to
portions licensed by an entity under this license:
'A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under
this license.'

The definitions and the use of the term "licensed patents" suggest
that the protection is extremely narrow and relate only to patents in
contributions willingly made under that license.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers