Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 66.51.199.94 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <42DD9E8C.3040507@dslextreme.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:45:00 -0700
From: Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: IBM and Apache
References: 
 <OF5FCBB6FE.9119C6C2-ON04257043.005CF4C2-04257043.005E6F2B@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <OF5FCBB6FE.9119C6C2-ON04257043.005CF4C2-04257043.005E6F2B@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeffrey Thompson wrote:

Pardon me for interjecting. I've been watching this discussion wondering 
if it will ever come to a reasonable conclusion. I have my doubts.

>
>I responded more in depth in another note, but I don't think I'm missing 
>the point (but then, that's exactly what you would expect me to say, isn't 
>it).
>  
>
I think you are. I'll respond to that one.

>First point:  This isn't an exception.  Apache is still providing all of 
>the rights on which I expect your counsel made his/her opinion.  Remember 
>this is a discussion about THIRD PARTY patent rights, not patents held by 
>the folks who helped write the Apache implementation (which is what ASL2.0 
>addresses).
>
>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.  After having done that work, they announce the good news that 
>all known patent holders have agreed.  The one twist is that one requires 
>a signed license for each implementation.  Apache's signature covers 
>Apache's work and those who use it.  Licensees which wish to use Apache's 
>code as a basis for a new implementation would need to get their own 
>license.  Now, is that the most desirable result, no.  But, it doesn't 
>violate the principles on which Apache was founded.
>  
>
I believe that it does.  Apache software is developed so that it can be 
freely used in virtually any fashion desired by Apache's "customers".   
In crude terms, this means that IBM (for example) can take the Http 
server and package it with any of its products without having to go to 
Microsoft (for example) and registering, with them or obtaining any kind 
of a license from them..

>I don't want to put words in the mouth of your lawyer, but I'd be ecstatic 
>if my clients had all of that work done before coming to me.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
>(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
>(web) http://www.beff.net/ 
>
>
>  
>


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