www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: IBM and Apache
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:52:32 GMT
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 01:11, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:

Before I forget; Jeffrey, I am very happy you are taking the time and "pushing 
your side of the coin". I think I and others have learned a lot in this 
thread.

> Second point:  In my hypothetical Apache did some additional homework and
> made sure that the known third party patent holders have committed to make
> RF licenses available to Apache's licensees.  There is absolutely nothing
> in Apache's license or in the Open Source Definition that requires that
> Apache do that.  Its a very nice thing for Apache to do, but certainly not
> required.

Sorry, I think you have missed the ASF policies here. Any *known* 
encumberance, such as Patent claims/required patent license, is an IP issue 
and covered by the general Board directive; Circumvent or Terminate.

As Simon says; It is more than "to the letter of the law", it is about 
principles and ethics.

Personally, I will feel sad if/when certain specifications can not be 
implemented by ASF, due to these policies, but I honestly think the ASF 
stance will prevail given enough time.
Where that will take us is probably not written yet, whether ASF forms a 
standards process/body, software patents will vanish, or less "ASF friendly" 
standards will become "second-class citizens", I don't know, but I think we 
are in a transitional period of time.


Cheers
Niclas

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