www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:47:21 GMT
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> i've found out that noel raised this in november
> And I still don't have a resolved answer.  Cliff seems to feel that  
> it is
> OK.  Roy and Greg, for different reasons I believe, appear to feel  
> that it
> is not OK.

My comment was:

>>         3.3 To indicate the Licensee's assent to the terms and  
>> conditions
>>             of this Agreement, the Licensee must include, attach, and
>>             preserve the following prominently displayed statement  
>> in the
>>             source code and documentation (or within a display  
>> where such
>>             third party notices generally appear) of any such
>>             Implementations: "This code incorporates intellectual  
>> property
>>             owned by Yahoo!."

I don't like this.  It isn't a statement of assent to the licensing  
but rather a statement that the IP is owned by Yahoo! (which is not
adequately scoped and implies that the patents are actually valid).
IMO, we should push back on that and ask for a specific factual  
like "This product incorporates DKIM algorithms under the following
license from Yahoo! <link>".

> And I am told by Lisa Dusseault, who has read the public thread on
> legal-discuss, that we need to have a resolution for this *ASAP*  
> because
> there is a very small window left where we can have it changed  
> before this
> becomes a formal RFC.

It is a very small change.  Lisa could ask Yahoo! to make the change.

> I do feel that there is an urgency to getting a policy resolution  
> on this
> matter ASAP.  I don't know if this is something that the Board is  
> willing to
> have come from our VP of Legal Affairs, or if the Board itself  
> wants to make
> a resolution, but we need to either have Yahoo! amend the terms,  
> agree to
> accept the terms, or we have to ban the use of the RFC by ASF  
> projects.

I think Cliff called it correctly, from a legal perspective.  The above
is a comment on public relations and inappropriate statements for us to
make, rather than one of legality.  I don't think it effects  
either way.

For James, talk to Yahoo! directly, or include in the NOTICE file:

    This product incorporates DKIM algorithms under the following
    license from Yahoo! <link>. The Apache Software Foundation has not
    evaluated whether "This code incorporates intellectual property
    owned by Yahoo!." is a valid or invalid statement.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message