Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Iain K.Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November 2002 21:26 [snip] Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however. Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember IBM filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite State Machines, The general form of FSM. Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would suceed. But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves up to having to defend a patent writ. My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent restrictions, we can be held liable. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iain K.Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November 2002 21:26 [snip] Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however. Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember IBM filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite State Machines, The general form of FSM. Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would suceed. But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves up to having to defend a patent writ. My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent restrictions, we can be held liable. Yes, but wasn't the point of the license to possibly protect the authors against lawsuits from _users_ of the library, if it later turns out to contain patented code? However, is it necessary to do anything about that? In other words, did CompuServe risk lawsuits from the users of the GIF format, when it turned out to be patented, and CompuServe was unaware of it? It seems that the only lawsuits there could be in practice, could be between patent holders, and users of the code. As you point out here, no disclaimer can protect against that. However, if that turn out to be the case, as in the case in case with GIF, you may find a workaround, like a new format, like PNG. Regards, Terje ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent restrictions, we can be held liable. Yes, but wasn't the point of the license to possibly protect the authors against lawsuits from _users_ of the library, if it later turns out to contain patented code? It is my understanding that warranting something that turns out to be false offers the author less protection than warranting nothing at all. However, is it necessary to do anything about that? In other words, did CompuServe risk lawsuits from the users of the GIF format, when it turned out to be patented, and CompuServe was unaware of it? IMHO, yes. But AFAICT in this litigious society, everything we do in the public sphere entails a legal risk. A lawsuit can be brought by anyone, claiming almost anything, for almost any reason. A lawsuit with no merit whatsoever will be likely to be thrown out early, but not neccessarily. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost License Issues
David Abrahams wrote: [...] I would be extremely surprised if anyone could make any worthwhile legal claims against any user of a major Boost library because of Boost itself. Whether or not it's worthwhile really depends on the goals of those bringin suit. You're making progress, Dave. ;-) http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25505.html (Red Hat clarifies stance on software patents) quote And to back that up the company has issued a pledge not to defend its patents against use in open source products. So long as the terms of the GNU General Public License v2.0; IBM Public License v1.0; Common Public License v0.5; Q Public License v1.0; or any Red Hat open source license are followed, you're good to go. /quote regards, alexander. -- http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
it is, unfortunately, in a trial lawyer's best interest to have LOTS of lawsuits over things. It's how s/he gets paid. I can't see any of them saying Well, here's a way to put us all out of business, just put this quote on all your documents. At Saturday 2002/11/30 08:43, you wrote: Iain K.Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November 2002 21:26 [snip] Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however. Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember IBM filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite State Machines, The general form of FSM. Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would suceed. But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves up to having to defend a patent writ. My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent restrictions, we can be held liable. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: There oughta be a law ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent restrictions, we can be held liable. Yes, but wasn't the point of the license to possibly protect the authors against lawsuits from _users_ of the library, if it later turns out to contain patented code? It is my understanding that warranting something that turns out to be false offers the author less protection than warranting nothing at all. Right. So saying anything about no infringement on known patents, could then be a false sense of security. It won't help anyone using the code, and it might make more risk for the claimer. Yet, if no disclaimer, of any kind (not just patents) are made, couldn't that give less protection? What I mean is like a quote from earlier in this thread: This software is provided without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. Without it, someone _might_ sue, because there was no disclaimer. However, I guess this is up to lawyers to assess, whether it would be an advantage or not. However, is it necessary to do anything about that? In other words, did CompuServe risk lawsuits from the users of the GIF format, when it turned out to be patented, and CompuServe was unaware of it? IMHO, yes. But AFAICT in this litigious society, everything we do in the public sphere entails a legal risk. A lawsuit can be brought by anyone, claiming almost anything, for almost any reason. A lawsuit with no merit whatsoever will be likely to be thrown out early, but not neccessarily. I'm reminded of a Dilbert strip, where Dilbert is asked to run a contract by the company lawyer: Lawyer: I can't approve this contract, because someone might sue us for no good reason. Dilbert: That's true of any contract. Isn't he using absurd logic? Dogbert: Let's find out. (To the lawyer) Approve this contract, or I'll sue you for the obstruction of dogs! Lawyer: Ok, ok...! :) Regards, Terje ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is my understanding that warranting something that turns out to be false offers the author less protection than warranting nothing at all. Right. So saying anything about no infringement on known patents, could then be a false sense of security. It won't help anyone using the code, and it might make more risk for the claimer. Yet, if no disclaimer, of any kind (not just patents) are made, couldn't that give less protection? What I mean is like a quote from earlier in this thread: This software is provided without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. Without it, someone _might_ sue, because there was no disclaimer. However, I guess this is up to lawyers to assess, whether it would be an advantage or not. Yes, IIUC. We have to do a delicate dance between disclaiming so much that it discourages use, and disclaiming so little that authors are more exposed. The disclaimer doesn't make it impossible to sue, but it does make it a little harder to make a case. Lots of companies have multi-page disclaimers in an attempt to reduce their risk to zero. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
I think the problem is that the entire clause can be viewed as disclaiming warranties against patent infringement/copyright violation/etc. The question is whether it is possible to protect both library authors and potential users. I don't see where else the buck can get passed. Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however. Dave In practice, Boost authors (and reviewers) will have made their best efforts to ensure that they don't know of any patent infringement and/or copyright violations. Perhaps we can say this without exposing the authors to too much risk? (As David rightly observes, I am not worth suing!) But ultimately, the user must surely assess and take the risk. However, a statement not known to infringe copyright or patent may help the user assess the risk. Hard to make any patent guarentees I think, as I'm sure the inventors of the .gif format would attest to. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Sean Parent wrote: [...] Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take. Right. What Adobe looks for is that: Right. Public domain http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498 aside, you might want to take a look at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost License Issues
David Abrahams wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Parent wrote:
[...]
Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take.
Right.
What Adobe looks for is that:
Right.
Public domain http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498 aside,
you might want to take a look at:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our
attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses
floating about? We probably can't review all of them...
You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might
want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each
and every contribution to boost. The Common Public License Version
1.0 that was developed by the IBM's lawyers/etc. is probably a good
starting point. AFAICT/AFAIK [speaking for myself {NOT IBM} with
respect to the CPL}, it is: [just a few details... IANALBIPOOTN ;-)]
- Next version of the IBM Public License;
- Preferred license for the release of IBM code as open source;
- Modifications to be licensed back under the CPL to earlier
contributors of the code;
- All warranties are disclaimed (provided AS IS);
- Binary forms of original and derived works can be combined
with non-CPL code and the result distributed under a non-CPL
license (including commercial);
- Explicit grant of patent license to contributors' contributions.
regards,
alexander.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Abrahams wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sean Parent wrote: [...] Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take. Right. What Adobe looks for is that: Right. Public domain http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498 aside, you might want to take a look at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses floating about? We probably can't review all of them... You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each and every contribution to boost. That's a non-answer. We could ADOPT (and would you please stop shouting; I'm getting tired of having to ask) any of the plethora of other open-source licenses that are floating about, with whatever changes we want/need to add. What makes the IBM license more worthy of consideration than, say, the BSD license? And as to whether we will require that contributors adopt a central Boost license or not, that question is still open. -Dave -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost License Issues
Paul A. Bristow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Does the as is really add anything that the sentence doesn't already state? This software is provided without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. seems clear enough as is! I think the problem is that the entire clause can be viewed as disclaiming warranties against patent infringement/copyright violation/etc. The question is whether it is possible to protect both library authors and potential users. I don't see where else the buck can get passed. Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however. Dave ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost License Issues
David Abrahams wrote: [...] What makes the IBM license more worthy of consideration than, say, the BSD license? Well, a sort of comparison/commentary w.r.t. quite a few most common OSS licenses that I have isn't public -- I can't tell you; you will have to ask your lawyer, I guess. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
