Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. 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

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

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

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

I used weasel words, "..does impact distribution of software.." By which I meant that the act of distributing software CAN trigger patent law. Not that it always does. Arguments can be made both ways on this. Giving away software for free can be argued to fall under, "Whoever actively induces

[License-discuss] code.mil update

On a rather unrelated note (apologies for the deluge of e-mails today!), the folks behind code.mil have responded to public feedback and are proposing significant changes to their approach. Instead of wrapping an OSI license as before, they now propose to directly utilize an existing

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 07, 2017, at 07:15 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." wrote: I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a criteria and a license passes or fails based on the

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

Ben Tilly wrote: > According to the statute as shown at > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271, patent law covers selling and > importing. Which by my reading means that it does impact distribution of > software, even if you do not run it. I don't read the law quite that way.

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 07, 2017, at 06:58 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: Software patents are terrible in part because they pertain to the source code itself, thus affecting the distribution terms on that code.   Patents don't pertain to source code

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

I dislike this approach. If CC0 passes OSD then it should get approved as is. If a patent grant is now a requirement to pass the OSD it should be added as a criteria and a license passes or fails based on the license text itself. Not CC0 and some patent agreement that has not been written. If

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Oooops :). Ignore the empty email. Why does who holds the patent matter in this case? If a patent exists and you don't have a patent grant actually precludes distribution of code it would apply regardless of who owns it right? If the existence of a patent doesn't preclude distribution then it

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Software patents are terrible in part because they pertain to the source code itself, thus affecting the distribution terms on that code. Patents don't pertain to source code or to code distribution, at least not in legal terms of direct patent infringement.

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

From: Christopher Sean Morrison > Date: Tuesday, Mar 07, 2017, 5:57 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD On

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 07, 2017, at 04:45 PM, Ben Tilly wrote: When we talk about whether a software license is OSD compliant, we are only addressing the question of whether this license restricts software under copyright law in a way that violates the OSD. I hear you, but I don't see

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 07, 2017, at 04:09 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

Richard Fontana suggested: > So in other words, "this license is Open Source to the extent that, when > used, it is accompanied by [a separate appropriate patent license grant]", > for example? Richard, that sounds like a great compromise that the government agencies might be able to live

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD

That is true, but OSI can make it clear that when software is licensed, then the licensor is expected to license any necessary patents that the licensor owns along with licensing the copyright. If there are patents that the licensor is unaware of, then the licensor can't do anything about that

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

My legal rights to software on the computer in front of me may be restricted by many things. A short and incomplete list includes copyright law, patents, contracts, who owns the computer and my employment status. Any and all of these can impact whether I actually enjoy the freedoms that the OSD

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:55:37PM +, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > Of particular significance, it calls into question whether there are > any OSI-approved licenses that specifically exclude patent rights in > the current portfolio or whether CC0 would be the first of its > kind.  If

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

On 07/03/17 13:30, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: It left me blinking too. Which OSD clause requires the distribution terms to permit use? I believe that position here is that OSD only covers copyright licensing and that US copyright law gives permission to use software (for copyright

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:56 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD >

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

On Mar 07, 2017, at 09:07 AM, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" wrote:I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a Government position).It certainly

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patent rights and the OSD

I personally think that software that is distributed without a patent license or a waiver of patent claims is not Open Source (this is my opinion, and not a Government position). It prevents people from freely modifying the code. That said, I don't have a problem with someone holding a

Re: [License-discuss] patent rights and the OSD

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > > On 06/03/17 23:41, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: >> From my reading, a patent gives the holder the right to exclude >> others from (a) making, (b) using, (c) selling, or (d) >> importing/exporting their invention.