www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: a note about indirect contributions
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:28:50 GMT

On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> +1, but again I would consider this a very specific case and I  
> wouldn't arrive as far as saying that any funded contribution  
> carries an implicit patent grant and the implicit Contributor role  
> for what looks to me like a third party.
>
> Then again, I recognize I might be completely wrong with my more  
> than non-existent understanding of US contract law. And I'd just  
> love to be proven wrong as this would streamline immensely our IP  
> duties.
>

IMO, the key points are:

    1. Whoever is committing the code has on file an iCLA (and
       possibly a CCLA) in which case *they/you* are committing
       the code with full knowledge of what that entails and means.
       You are claiming the legal ability to donate it.

    2. MS has made it clear in their press release, in their
       discussions with the media and analysts as well as
       people within the ASF that the *intent* of the work
       was to create code that was to be donated to POI.
       For them to later on claim that we somehow infringe
       on any patent would and seek damages, etc would be
       laughable. And certainly not defendable.


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


Mime
View raw message