www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: CCLA: "by combination" language
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:47:57 GMT
Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote on 05/31/2006 07:36:26 PM:

> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > 
> > This does not appear to be the case: BEA and IBM are clearly examples 
> > of active Apache contributors invested in large patent portfolios.
> Why then are there equally large companies with large patent portfolios 
> and active Apache contributors but no CCLA on file?
I hesitate to guess at the answer to that question, however, I'd like to 
point out that it is probably NOT the language of the patent grant that's 
the cause.  The patent language in the CCLA is identical to the language 
in the Apache License 2.0, which applies to the Corporation through the 
authorized Contributions by its employees.  Refusing to sign the CCLA 
doesn't negate that patent grant.


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/ 

View raw message