On 12/23/2016 12:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> My understanding is that it is already settled case law that contributed >> code to a GPL licensed projects implicitly grants a perpetual, royalty free >> license to use any applicable patent the author uses in the code. > > According to this it is not settled case law in the UK. Apache, on the > other hand... > > http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 > > >> Of course there is no case law regarding patent s in other licenses, in >> particular MIT and BSD, which have no strong copyleft provisions. > > Yes, I think *mandating* that ietf contributions be under a weak, > unsettled license is fraught with problems.
The code inside an RFC is always under a Simplified BSD License, but that is not what the License described below is about. It is about the text of the RFC itself, which is under a far more restrictive license (which is why Debian, among others, cannot redistribute RFCs) on the copyright side, and that require mandatory disclosure on the patent side. > >> >> This issue of submarine patent traps is important in communications protocol >> invention. Protocol patents are far worse than software patents... IMO, >> communications protocols should never be property. IESG is struggling to >> create a middle ground, where there should be no middle, IMO. > Aren't communication protocols mathematics, e.g. propositions in linear logic, and so unpatentable? > Tend to agree. > >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm >> To: "Dave Taht" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Dave Taht" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories >> >> On 12/23/2016 08:05 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> I have no idea what they are trying to do. >> >> This is to prevent people to propose text to be included in a specification >> without disclosing that this may be relevant to a patent or patent >> application they own or know about. As soon you make a contribution, you >> are supposed to disclose such IPR in the IETF database. This text makes it >> explicit that anything done in such repository is covered by the same >> requirements. >> >> An alternative would have been a variant of the Signed-off-by header, but as >> the repository does not extend to the RFC-editor or the IETF Trust, that's, >> the best that can be done for now. >> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: IESG Secretary >>> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM >>> Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories >>> To: IETF Announcement List >>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected] >>> >>> >>> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source >>> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and >>> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style >>> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be >>> more popular in the future. >>> >>> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful >>> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to >>> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As >>> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to >>> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the >>> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be >>> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with >>> some additional information that is already present in these files in >>> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text >>> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as >>> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to >>> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues. >>> >>> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts >>> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the >>> following text. >>> >>> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th, >>> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This >>> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it >>> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG ([email protected]) by 2017-01-17. >>> >>> The IESG >>> >>> —— >>> >>> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task >>> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions >>> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property >>> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78 >>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79 >>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal >>> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents >>> (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html). >>> >>> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this >>> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You >>> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures, >>> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code >>> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in >>> Contributions. >>> >>> >>> >> -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: [email protected] Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
