Brian Utterback <[email protected]> wrote: > We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the > SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout > of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting > rights to patents included in the contribution, but the other > interpretation is that it grants rights to all patents owned by the > contributor. > > As Casper is saying, strictly speaking and according to the rules of > law, it may not be ambiguous at all. However, the fact that a > reasonable person reading the sentence might interpret it the other > way suggests that it could be worded better, even if a court would > never interpret it that way. > > Of course, simply removing the ambiguous parts would not be an option. > Clarifying them would be.
This is correct, but it is not only the patent sectioon but also the missing definition of a "contribution". The latter is more important for me. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
