www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject IBM's license for WS-Security - Take #2
Date Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:28:08 GMT
Jeff,

Did you miss replying to this email? (or did i lose it in my spam bucket?)

thanks,
dims

On 6/23/05, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> Here's the feedback on the IBM License (Sorry the U.S. Export clause
> was only in the MSFT license and i wrongly copied it in the email i
> sent to you).
> 
> thanks,
> dims
> 
> ===============================================================
> Some brief comments on the IBM license for WS-Security:
> 
> 1. The license would allow ASF to make, sell etc. only Licensed Products
> that are compliant with "all relevant portions of the Specification." What
> are relevant portions? Is ASF willing to guarantee full compliance? (Section
> 1.1 and 6.2.)
> 
> 2. The license is nontransferrable. Under this license, ASF can't allow
> third parties to make Licensed Products, which is contrary to ASF's license.
> While the license purports to be sublicenseable, that sublicense extends
> only to "Subsidiaries," which is irrelevant to ASF's model or open source in
> general. (Section 1.3.)
> 
> 3. ASF can't experiment with this patented technology unless it in fact
> afterwards executes this agreement. Prior infringment isn't excused
> otherwise. So be careful until you decide to execute the agreement. (Section
> 1.4)
> 
> 4. The patent termination provision (section 2.2) is very broad and applies
> to any claim for patent infringement. Such provisions have been denounced by
> several companies, and ASF changed its Apache 2.0 license in response to
> such criticism. Now IBM is resurrecting it here.
> 
> 5. For some reason, IBM has the right to publicise the agreement but the
> other party doesn't. (Section 5.2.). This lack of balance of rights in IBM's
> licenses always troubles me. Furthermore, why that restriction?
> 
> 6. The license requires formal execution. (Section 5.6.) That kind of
> licensing friction doesn't work for open source downstream licensees who
> intend to make, use, sell, etc., Licensed Products or derivative works.
> 
> 7. This license doesn't include a copyright license to "implementation
> examples." So be careful not to copy those examples when implementing the
> Specification. (Section 6.1, final sentence.)
> ===============================================================
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message