There are narrower definitions definitions. I recall an 80% definition in the tax code and a 90% definition in state corporate codes. I haven't worked with these in years (a change for which I'm grateful), but I'm sure they can be found without too much trouble. I can't recall how dense the language for the 80% definition is. Sometimes the tax code is unbearably dense, and sometimes shockingly brief.
There was also a broader definition, using 20% as the threshold for control. I suppose some might like this for the "Your Covered Patents" section. But a lot of companies do investments around this level where they don't have control, so it might cause a lot of trouble for companies that couldn't comply. Mitchell Bruce Perens wrote: >Mitchell, > >A possibly naive question: The text you submitted is a _broad_ definition >that is in common use. Is there a similar _narrow_ definition as well? > >I don't see that this text would be the right way for a quid-pro-quo >license to define the legal entity in which distribution doesn't happen, >because that entity would include beta-testers under contract, would it >not? Maybe even _users_ under contract or NDA? > >On the other hand, there are applications in a quid-pro-quo license >_would_ use this definition, "Your Licensed Patents" comes to mind. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
