www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com>
Subject Re: SGA Alterations
Date Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:12:01 GMT
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Here's the response from our attorney:
>>
>>
>> - The change in the first Whereas clause indicates that we are granting a
>> “license,” not conveying ownership / title.  The word used “contribute” has
>> no meaning in the copyright act.  Congress drafted the copyright act and
>> included the word “license” not “contribute”.  So it should be clarified.
>> Clearing this ambiguity helps Apache so that its “license” rights are
>> certain.
>> -          Paragraph 1:  “now” is inserted because Cloudera cannot grant a
>> license to a patent not yet owned or issued.  By using language contrary to
>> the patent act, it could have the effect of rendering the actual grant
>> faulty.  Apache would not benefit from that.  The word “now” should be
>> included so its clear that it applies to patents currently owned and issued.
>> -          Paragraph 2 indicates that the grant is made w/o investigation
>> and based on knowledge.  This is not a “hedge”.  This language makes it
>> consistent with the warranty exclusion included in the agreement.  Without
>> this clarification, the warranty exclusion could be seen as being at odds
>> with the grant.  Apache does not benefit from this ambiguity.
>> -          Paragraph 2 indicates that the statement is made as of the
>> Effective Date.  There is no obligation to monitor future developments or
>> future actions.  Again, such a prospective obligation would be inconsistent
>> with the warranty exclusion.  Without this, the conflict could be read
>> against the drafter (Apache), and it would not benefit them from this
>> result.
>>
>> I also add that by making the agreement more accurate, more consistent
>> with law and less internally ambiguous it makes these types of reviews and
>> discussions less common.  The Apache person indicates that others have
>> sought to have changes made, but Apache consistently says "no".  I think
>> Apache benefits from having a more readily acceptable agreement.  This could
>> speed their process without introducing any risk.
>
>
> He also suggested that speaking directly with a licensing attorney on the
> ASF side might be easier than going through us non-lawyers as intermediaries
> :)
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera


Todd:
Just to make sure I understand the gist of this, would this
reformulation be more or less correct?

Cloudera has patents filed but not yet granted that apply to the domain.
Cloudera has patents for sure [1].

Therefore it cannot make any patent grant for now to Apache under the
SGA  because
the patents have not been granted yet.

If the future, if these patents are effectively granted to Cloudera,
then using Impala or Kudu
would imply using these patents, but no grants would have been made to
Apache and therefore
to its users?

If any of this is vaguely true my head is spinning and I cannot fathom
the implication whether or not
the SGA is used as-is or amended.

[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=cloudera&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=cloudera

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

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


Mime
View raw message