Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com.INVALID>
In-Reply-To: <556F126E.1090200@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:06:27 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B41BA55D-5C18-4350-AE69-E9CB55B7E07A@yahoo.com>
References: <0ebc01d093f7$197e7ef0$4c7b7cd0$@rosenlaw.com>
	<C61F7785-6BFF-45A5-8530-98AA02B59A80@gbiv.com>
	<CACsi251EvGfmmADtDRYrYJRdLQNegTpgUYWffzu_X0tKW4aZZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<019001d09d86$aee7f500$0cb7df00$@rosenlaw.com>
	<CABD8fLV3GcaCYjTALMxPT2w-5tQc09-p6JwE36DnZKiAy=zRsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsi252H30_sQzrUukUwCifkkRow+F8RKMj5D__DSAejDjAHFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8EorBxC+i-LE_OOmmdkEyDF0H+T6z+Xenvn8H+JOAuuFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsi2524iJPOwEpnSBEe-=F_pWHcj6QJSEVmTPcwaiiujc1VZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8EtczBL4b0z-TXetLjj8GGY8NkKyBunot6X8fV_yTrCKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66710DF6-A88A-44D0-85C4-794E3C0E95AC@pobox.com>
	<B89D74EB-6A5E-464A-A538-5DB8267F8FF4@pobox.com>
	<CACsi2508GCqY8UhC7uofpxkjeAaQ7eep8umrNnGPW_9KSZ3_4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<300DB301-A009-489B-ADFB-ED3919B1AFBD@pobox.com>
	<8CC10372-468B-4E28-9A0D-F8A2929DD9AE@jaguNET.com>
	<A5230574-6A69-4EE0-ADF6-064F2D5E1339@pobox.com>
	<556EFA30.7030602@shanecurcuru.org>
 <CACsi250G+Mw7yUtAt1Hjw_6QpH=5_UuaXVi4TsJuw2dUKCxEQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <556F126E
 .1090200@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org

I think Marks concerns should be taken quite seriously.

thanks
david jencks

On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:

> On 03/06/2015 14:38, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org
>> <mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org>> wrote:
>>=20
>>    On 6/3/15 8:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> But what's the point of any of this?  There's no reason to require =
Sneaky Author to enumerate anything because via contribution via the AL, =
they have granted a license to anything they have necessarily infringed =
by the contribution (or combined contribution and existing work)
>>>=20
>>> And I as the recipient don't really care - I know that via the =
patent grant in the AL, Sneaky Author can't come after me for any =
patents they hold (enumerated or not) that read on the work they =
contributed to.
>>>=20
>>> Is there a real problem we're trying to solve?
>>=20
>>    I'm not aware of any Apache project asking this question, no.  It =
seems
>>    Bill might have a case related to this thread, which we can =
address when
>>    it comes up.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Indeed, there is no sneaky author.  The patents are public filings.  =
No=20
>> need for tinfoil hats or detection gadgets.  Those patent use rights =
are=20
>> granted, by the very design of the AL, to every downstream consumer.
>>=20
>> Apparently, none of you spend too much time with your corp-consumer
>> legal teams.  It's brutal.
>>=20
>> Pretty much everything out there, IP-wise, bollixes the works.  Stray
>> non-conforming license?  That's out.  Stray patent claim?  Straight =
out.
>>=20
>> So yes, there is a project which is trying to offer =
code-with-patent-license
>> to the ASF, and has succeeded at their CCLA plus CLAs and would like
>> to wokr out the best way to inform / reassure users that these =
particular
>> patent claims are known to apply and are granted for use to whatever
>> downstream consumer wants to use the code.
>=20
> <full-disclosure>
> The corp in question is my employer.
> These are my opinions not my employers.
> </full-disclosure>
>=20
> I appreciate that the corp in question is trying to do the right =
thing.
>=20
> I would argue - based on our experience of adding the "I grant this
> patch under the ALv2" button to Jira - that doing anything over any
> beyond that which is required by our existing CLA and CCLA process =
will
> cause us more problems in the long run than it solves.
>=20
> By granting this code to the ASF under the ALv2 any and all necessary
> patent licenses are granted. That is the only thing that needs to be
> said publicly and - in my view - the only thing that should be said
> publicly. There is no problem here that needs to be solved.
>=20
> If the corp wants to provide the PMC (privately) with a list of =
patents
> it thinks it has licensed then fine but I don't see how making that =
list
> public helps anyone.
>=20
> The potential issues I see with making the list public include:
> - projects that don't publish a list of licensed patents start being
>  asked by users to produce one
> - projects that do publish a list start being asked about XYZ patent
>  that a random user things might apply to the project
> - committers start being asked to explicitly state if each commit is
>  covered by a patent or not
>=20
> If we could guarantee that - for each project - we could produce a
> complete list of licensed patents then I'd have far fewer concerns. =
But
> I do not believe we can do that. Further, I believe that publishing
> incomplete lists will create the perception of problems where none
> exists given the clear and unambiguous language that is already =
present
> in the ALv2 with respect to patents.
>=20
> Mark
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>=20


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org