www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: IBM and WS-Security
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:19:32 GMT
At 10:21 AM 6/24/2005, Ben Laurie wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licensable, non-transferable
>>license to third parties, under royalty-free and other reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms and conditions, to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author deems
necessary to implement required portions of the WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal
license is granted. 
>
>Because it doesn't say what hoops you have to jump through to obtain that licence (the
requirement we have being, essentially, that there should be no hoops for the end user).

Exactly.  Which is why I ask, if grant of license is offered
to the author, are the users of that author's work covered by
the grant?

And also why RSA's license-by-fax-in-duplicate is barely
acceptable, if at all, at the ASF, if that license doesn't then
cover all users.

If there are extra burdens noted in NOTICE for derivative works,
making developers lives harder, I'd be hesitant to graduate such
a project.  But if there are extra burdens on every user or those
redistributing the ASF's work, that's unacceptable.

E.g. if 'implementation' license grants don't extend to users 
and redistribution, without additional effort, then every 
organization offering us proxy servers for our distribution 
tree could be violators of those patents.

Bill



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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