I see. There are no pending patents either. I'm not sure why the FAQ was worded ambiguously like that. We'll get it fixed, though we'll probably have to run it by legal, so it might take a bit.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 AM, John Haine <j.l.hain...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Kenton, many thanks for the prompt reply. Apologies for being > pedantic, but after all this is a legal question! > > The FAQ states that Google have no _issued_ patents. My understanding > (I'm UK based) is that in US law an issued patent is one that is > granted. So in principle there could be pending patent applications > that cover PB which are still under examination and not yet issued. > Under the Apache licence this wouldn't matter since the patent clause > makes no distinction, but absent a patent licensing clause in the BSD, > taken with the FAQ statement, there is some ambiguity here. > > I wouldn't suggest that you move to a dual-licence regime but perhaps > the FAQ could be amended if indeed it is the case that there are no > patents, pending or issued, that cover PB? > > Thanks, and apologies again for being pedantic! > > John. > > On Jun 21, 6:21 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the question. As the FAQ says, we hold no > patents > > on this code. What is your concern, exactly? If we dual-licensed the > code > > under BSD and Apache, would that help? > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:32 AM, John Haine <j.l.hain...@googlemail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, apologies if this question has already been answered! Anyway, > > > here goes... > > > > > Originally, PB was licensed under Apache 2.0. Later, the license was > > > changed to BSD to make it more compatible with GPL2. On the FAQ there > > > is the following statement: > > > > > "Does Google have any patents on Protocol Buffers? > > > > > Google currently has no issued patents on Protocol Buffers, and we are > > > happy to address any concerns around Protocol Buffers and patents that > > > people may have." > > > > > Now the advantage of the Apache license is that it includes a specific > > > statement about the licensing of patents instantiated in the code, > > > which is not present in the BSD license. > > > > > What is Google's policy on this now the license has changed please? > > > > > John. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Protocol Buffers" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
