www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects
Date Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:35:27 GMT
Are you referring to Microsoft's OpenSource Promise? There was a big flame war at that time
in POI. Our Founder left and the project went on to implement OOXML.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <rob@robweir.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On May 31, 2015 4:54 PM, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> ...
>> >>
>> >>> This means that an opinion that a patent is "just plain BS, IMHO," is
not
>> >>> a relevant opinion at this stage of determining infringement.
>> >>>
>> >>> As for patent validity, there is nobody at Apache who is qualified to
>> >>> analyze that for others. The most ASF can do is to disclose what we
are
>> >>> aware of in a NOTICE file and let our customers do their own analysis
if
>> >>> they want to.
>> >>
>> >> Aren't we similarly unqualified to determine whether we infringe? I would
>> >> say "yes", and I'm sure you would agree.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, to water out random claims of infringement from random developers,
>> >> we must wait until the patent holder *informs* us that we (likely) infringe.
>> >> Until the patent holder wants to assert that, then I don't think we're
>> >> qualified to make *any* judgement, including whether it is
>> >> important/relevant to provide notice.
>> >
>> > Forgive my ignorance, but, surely, if we are aware that we infringe,
>> > wouldn't we be compelled to rectify that situation before making another
>> > release?
>> 
>> Our policy indeed is that "We never knowingly incorporate patented
>> technology in our own products unless such technology has been offered
>> free for everyone."[1]
> 
> So what about patent claims necessarily infringed in the implementation of a standard
by an Apache project, where the patent holder has agreed to a royalty free license for implementors
of that standard?   I hope we consider that to be sufficiently "free for everyone" even though
it is not necessarily free for anyone outside of implementers of that standard.
> 
> -Rob
> 
>  
>> As to what we do when we are made aware of a potential infringement:
>> we (through our VP of Legal Affairs) will seek advice from counsel as
>> to how to proceed.
>> 
>> > This whole conversation seems to assume that we would, at any point, make a
>> > release while being aware of an infringement, which should never happen.
>> 
>> - Sam Ruby
>> 
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 

Mime
View raw message