Hi Nigel, you actually brought up a really good point, one that I didn't have a ready answer to. I took it to ARL's lawyers, and we're putting together an answer, which I hope will be done by tomorrow. If you haven't heard from me by Wednesday, ping me.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:43 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; lro...@rosenlaw.com > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________________________________ > > > > Cem, > > Larry's advice (tongue in cheek or not) isn't the issue for FedGov or ARL > policy. That I randomly picked an ARL patent that happens to > illustrate the potential issue is simply lucky. > > The issue is that someone in some other part of the government could have > released an open source implementation with a patent grant > of Dr Chen's patent and deprived him (and ARL) of financial reward for his > work. > > I'm sure there are some here who would simply shrug and say who cares...rent > seeking is evil anyway...but the FedGov policies regarding > rewarding innovation is one aspect of attracting and keeping inventors in the > government as opposed to going to private industry. > > ARL and the DoD has an even harder time than research universities when it > comes to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is > doing. IMHO explicit patent grants provided by ARL in open source releases > should be limited to those generated by ARL itself unless ARL > intends to insure it isn't giving away a patent created by an inventor in > another branch of the federal government. > > I say this over and over but while it is laudable for you to give away > something you create to the world it is unethical for you to give away > something someone else created to the world. > > Broad patent grant language in FOSS licenses/policies risks exactly that for > very large organizations and the cost to prevent that means it > is far easier (and cheaper) to simply not open source. > > I really implore you to revisit the ECL V2 patent language and the reasons > they didn't feel that vanilla Apache 2.0 was suitable for them > when you (and the ARL lawyers and your OTT) are helping evolve the ARL open > source policy. > > Nigel > > Obligatory Disclaimer: speaking as an individual, the opinions expressed here > are my own and no one else's, etc. > > From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > Date: Sunday, Mar 19, 2017, 6:42 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com <lro...@rosenlaw.com < > Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com > >, license-discuss@opensource.org > <license- > disc...@opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD > > I was out Thursday and Friday, but... see attached Federal Register notice > regarding this particular patent. I know that Larry was (mostly) > pulling everyone's leg, but before anyone gets themselves into trouble, I > figured I should put the warning out there. > > I'm not a lawyer, as far as I know this doesn't count as an official warning, > I'm not representing the US Government (or any other > government) in this matter, etc., etc., etc. I just personally don't want to > see anyone spend time on something and then get burned in the > end. Please don't shoot (or flame) the messenger. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > > Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > ] On Behalf Of > > Lawrence Rosen > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:07 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and > > the OSD > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify > > the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the > address to a Web browser. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Nigel Tzeng wrote: > > > > > Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and > > > tracking moving targets as an example it could be useful to have > > an open source copyright license to any USG developed MTI > > implementation of US7460689B1 because the libraries and functions used to > > implement the patent could be reusable. > > > > > > > > Nigel, I am avoiding reading that patent because I have no time, but since > > you did read it I can ask you some questions: > > > > > > > > Is the patent already "reusable" for things other than "detecting, > > recognizing, and tracking moving targets"? What is the relationship > > between "libraries and functions used to implement the patent" and all > > those different uses of the patent claims than are disclosed in > US7460689B1? Are those copyrighted "libraries and functions" themselves > patented claims in US7460689B1? > > > > > > > > Without such a patent analysis – that no open source engineer is > > required to undertake prior to an infringement notice from the patent > > owner – I'm comfortable recommending that we implement such open > > source software. The hell with random patents tossed out by Nigel > > Tzeng to scare me. :-) > > > > > > > > /Larry > > > > > > > > "If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf > > Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > > Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and > > the OSD > > > > > > > > Cem, > > > > > > > > To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I > > skimmed ARLs patent portfolio. > > > > > > > > Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and > > tracking moving targets as an example it could be useful to have an > > open source copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation > > of US7460689B1 because the libraries and functions used to implement > > the patent could be reusable. While a lot of the basic functions may exist > > today in GDL or SciPy the underlying image processing, change > map creation, math, etc may have been reusable outside of the context of > US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the software > community when most of those capabilities were only widely available in > systems like Matlab or IDL. > > > > > > > > Even more so the software components required to interface with Army > > systems that would have to be built around any operational MTI system. > > Getting access to source code from another government > agency/DoD program isn’t always as painless as one might expect. > > > > > > > > While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an > > additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not get > > done. It would be far easier for the program to open source the entire > > system with the note that US7460689B1 and others apply to > these 4 subsystems and care must be applied to any reuse of those components. > > > > > > > > I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give > > away all software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent that > > individual government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from > > their inventions. Is there reason that software inventors should > have less financial opportunity than hardware inventors? > > > > > > > > What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an > > unrelated ARL or DoD project will not open source code that > > unknowingly implements their patent and provide a free patent grant? > > What happens to the entity that may have contracted for an exclusive patent > > license agreement for that patent through their > technology transfer office? Will the office responsible for approving ARL > open source releases with patent grants be able to review source > code applicability to not just ARL patents but those from the NRL or DOE? > > > > > > > > There is a reason I favor the patent grant language in the Educational > > Community License v2.0 for GOSS and large research > organizations. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Nigel > > > > > > > > ObDis: Not speaking for the lab. > > > > > > > > On 3/8/17, 9:36 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV > > USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss- boun...@opensource.org on > > behalf of cem.f.karan....@mail.mil < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > boun...@opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20cem.f.karan....@mail.mil > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the > > code.gov > > > > people. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cem Karan > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss- > > boun...@opensource.org > ] On > > > > > Behalf Of Stephen Kellat > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM > > > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent > > rights and the > > > > > OSD > > > > > > > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please > > verify the > > > > > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all > > links > > > > > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the > > address to a > > > > > Web browser. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu > > < Caution-Caution-mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent > > rights in > > > > > > CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt > > for > > > > > a one size fit all patent grant language among different > > agencies with > > > > > different policies and the complexity under which patent rights > > are > > > > > awarded to whom under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 10096. > > > > > > > > > > > > Employees of federal agencies, especially research oriented > > ones, have > > > > > > some financial interest and rights under 10096. > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise non-profits and small businesses under Bayh-Dole. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO patent grant language in FOSS licenses provide a false > > sense of > > > > > > security. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would rather the government open source as much as possible > > regardless > > > > > > of patent rights as long as any known patents are disclosed. > > > > > As seen in Ximpleware v Versata the patents typically only cover > > a small > > > > > portion of the overall system (VTD-XML). While it is relevant > > from > > > > > the perspective of being able to use the system as built it is > > less relevant > > > > > from a code reuse perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > For large government systems significant software components > > could often > > > > > > be reused without the specific portions covered under > > > > > patent. > > > > > > > > > > > > So just having a copyright license to the entire project would > > provide > > > > > > significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 > > years > > > > > ago I'd love to get access to again even if I couldn't use the > > rest of the > > > > > system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l > > istinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > After a less than fabulous day at work for IRS dealing with my > > tiny corner > > > > > of tax law as well as my accounts work, I am tempted after > > > > > reading this. Perhaps this could be used as well as the rest of > > this thread > > > > > as pre-decisional input to open a tight Inquiry in the Federal > > > > > Register. That's the first step we can take to move into > > building a formal > > > > > record for a body of law. Alternatively getting something > > > > > chartered under the Federal Advisory Committees Act might help > > move this > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > > > I think the debate has dragged on a bit for more than a few > > months. Moving > > > > > to where desirable federal policy/policies are adopted is > > > > > probably doable. Could we narrow this down to 3 or fewer > > courses of action > > > > > that might be explored by ARL counsel in an inquiry notice? > > > > > Even if list participants are the only people that respond to a > > notice in > > > > > the Federal Register we're still building a useful record for > > later use > > > > > such as Federal Acquisition Rules changes, for example. > > > > > > > > > > Depending upon what shows up in the President's budget set to > > drop Monday, I > > > > > either will have a lot of time on my hands coming up or > > > > > an ICTAP certificate plus lots of time on my hands. I want to > > see Federal > > > > > OSS policy evolve. We have laid the groundwork here but need > > > > > to get it in the official record soon. > > > > > > > > > > Stephen Michael Kellat > > > > > GS-0962-07/1 > > > > > These views are solely my own and not those of the US > > Government. Rank, > > > > > position, grade, and bureau are cited for identification > > > > > purposes only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > > > > Caution-Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l > > istinfo/license-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > License-discuss mailing list > > > > License-discuss@opensource.org < > > Caution-Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org > > > > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > license-discuss < Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi- > > bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss