FYI (I apologize for the cross-posting) Steve
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:11 PM To: Steve Viens Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OASIS and patents: UDDI Hi Steve, thanks for the note. It does appear that, technically, such RF licenses would need to be sought in order to be legally clean, but with publication of such a commitment on the OASIS site, even if we were "caught" without such royalty-free licenses in our hands, the patent holders would have a tough time claiming damages in any sort of legal action. The more important issue, though, is that we are essentially committing our *downstream* users to obtaining licenses to the patents that our code implements. What it means is that instead of saying, "Here's some fine fresh Apache software under the Apache license, enjoy!" we need to say, "Here's some fine fresh Apache software under the Apache license, and by the way to use it legally you need to go to X, Y, and Z and obtain patent licenses." We're also thus hoping that the patent grants made by these companies are non-revocable; that they don't one day remove the ability to obtain RF licenses from them. I'm also concerned about the statement further down that page, the "Notices and Disclaimers for UDDI Specifications for the UDDI Version 2 and 3 Specifications", where it says: If the Licensors own any patents or patent applications that may be required for implementing and using the specifications contained in the Document in products that comply with the specifications, upon written request, a non-exclusive license under such patents shall be granted on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. RAND might not mean "free for Apache-licensed works". Sigh, I hate the complexity of all this. It's one reason why we've resisted allowing riders and other complexity on licensing of Apache works. What is sometimes interpreted as dogma is really just a plea for sanity! :) I think the board and membership need to discuss if Apache projects that implement specifications that require getting a license from third-party patent holders is acceptable or not. For now, carry on. Brian On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Steve Viens wrote: > The UDDI IPR can be found at the URL below. It appears as though we > *may > eventually* need to obtain royalty free patent licenses from Oracle, IBM > and Sun. > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/ipr.php > > Excerpts from the IPR that make me believe this are below (I've > included these in the note for convenience. Please read the full IPR > so the following is read in the correct context): > > Oracle believes the following published patent application contains > one or more claims ... Oracle will, upon written request, provide a > nonexclusive, royalty free patent license ... for implementing > versions 1, 2, and 3 of the UDDI specification. > > IBM believes the following published patent application contains one > or more claims ... IBM will, upon written request, provide a > nonexclusive, royalty free patent license ... for implementing the > UDDI Versions 1, 2, and 3 specification. > > Sun Microsystems' current "intentions" with respect to several pending > patent applications that were identified more than two years ago as > possibly relevant to UDDI v.1 ... if and when it is determined that > Sun does own claims which would necessarily be infringed by any such > implementation ... then any party will be able to obtain from Sun a > royalty-free license covering its Necessary Claims for the creation, > use and distribution of compliant implementations of the UDDI v. 2 > Specification as finally approved by OASIS. > > Steve
