Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 1608 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2005 05:52:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 2005 05:52:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 12244 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2005 05:52:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 12094 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2005 05:52:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 12081 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jul 2005 05:52:40 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:52:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [203.114.48.52] (HELO f2.hedhman.org) (203.114.48.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:52:35 -0700 Received: from f2.hedhman.org (f2.hedhman.org [127.0.0.1]) by f2.hedhman.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6K5qXL3007898 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:52:36 +0800 From: Niclas Hedhman Organization: Private To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: IBM and Apache Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:52:32 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507201352.32739.niclas@hedhman.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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