Open Source Initiative Certification for GPL 3.0]

If the issue here is the express patent license language in
GPLv3, best
place to raise that issue is at gplv3.fsf.org (although the
scope of the
express patent license is one that is currently much
commented on and
discussed)

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Temeles, Jr. [mailto:dtemelesnvalaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:50 AM
To: 'License Discuss'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett wrote:

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where
boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license
termination

Russ Nelson replied:

> If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about
it?

DAT Responds:

The patent license issue is one of the most contentious
hurdles to
adoption
of "open source" software and I see this as
being a major issue in the
near
future in legal departments throughout the land.  The
original open
source
software licenses failed to address the patent license issue
-
essentially
because there were little or no software patents.  Then open
source
software
licenses (e.g., IBM's) began extending express patent
licenses to those
patent claims incorporated in the licensed software, but
only to the
extent
the licensed software utilized the claims at the time the
initial
version of
software was released.  Now, open source licenses are
essentially trying
to
eliminate the effect of software patents altogether.  For
example, the
GPLv3
provides an express patent grant to all patent claims owned
or licensed,
now
or in the future, by a party distributing covered software. 
This
license
appears to extend to all versions of the software and all
licensees of
the
software.  The license applies regardless of whether: i) the
version of
the
software released by the distributing party actually
incorporated
features
covered by the claims; ii) the licensee is a downstream user
of the
distributing party (i.e., the licensee is using the version
of the
software
distributed by the distributor or by a sublicensee of the
distributor)
or
the licensee obtained a version of the software from a party
either
upstream
from the distributing party or on a different fork
altogether; or iii)
the
patent claims apply to software, hardware or some other
unrelated
technology.  Is a license that requires such a grant
consistent with the
definition of open source according to OSI?  If so, should
it be?  I
think
these are legitimate issues for us to waste a few keystrokes
on...

Dave
David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemelesnvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any
attachments
to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) and
may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the
intended
recipient, please notify David A. Temeles, Jr. immediately
at either
(703)
354-7905 x 230 or at dtemelesnvalaw.com, and destroy all
copies of this
message and any attachments

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelsoncrynwr.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:17 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification
for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett writes:
 > a) the fact that license-proliferation archive
suggests that there's 
 > been no activity since last September, and 

I'm a little frustrated by that, too.  The discussions were
always
intended to be among a small group, to prevent lobbying on
behalf of
one license or another.  I thought it would happn on
license-proliferation, which is how and why I set it up. 
Instead, the
committee has used a CC list.  Once the committee's results
are
accepted by the OSI board (which should happen soon ... very
soon),
they will be published, and THEN the fighting will begin. 
Did I say
"fighting"?  I meant "discussion".

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where
boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license
termination

If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about it?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
   | A computer without
Python
is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU
without
memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs,
but you can't
do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything
useful with
it.

Actually, how the GPLv3 handles the patent issue is not the
point of my
comment - it just happens to be a timely and useful foil for
conveying my
point.  The point being that OSI should discuss and select a
position on
patent license grants, even if the ultimate decision is that
it will not
take a particular position on patent license grants.   

Dave
David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemelesnvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any
attachments to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the intended
recipient, please notify David A. Temeles, Jr. immediately
at either (703)
354-7905 x 230 or at dtemelesnvalaw.com, and destroy all
copies of this
message and any attachments


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smithintel.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:56 AM
To: David A. Temeles, Jr.; License Discuss
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification
for GPL 3.0]

If the issue here is the express patent license language in
GPLv3, best
place to raise that issue is at gplv3.fsf.org (although the
scope of the
express patent license is one that is currently much
commented on and
discussed)

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Temeles, Jr. [mailto:dtemelesnvalaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:50 AM
To: 'License Discuss'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett wrote:

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where
boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license
termination

Russ Nelson replied:

> If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about
it?

DAT Responds:

The patent license issue is one of the most contentious
hurdles to
adoption
of "open source" software and I see this as
being a major issue in the
near
future in legal departments throughout the land.  The
original open
source
software licenses failed to address the patent license issue
-
essentially
because there were little or no software patents.  Then open
source
software
licenses (e.g., IBM's) began extending express patent
licenses to those
patent claims incorporated in the licensed software, but
only to the
extent
the licensed software utilized the claims at the time the
initial
version of
software was released.  Now, open source licenses are
essentially trying
to
eliminate the effect of software patents altogether.  For
example, the
GPLv3
provides an express patent grant to all patent claims owned
or licensed,
now
or in the future, by a party distributing covered software. 
This
license
appears to extend to all versions of the software and all
licensees of
the
software.  The license applies regardless of whether: i) the
version of
the
software released by the distributing party actually
incorporated
features
covered by the claims; ii) the licensee is a downstream user
of the
distributing party (i.e., the licensee is using the version
of the
software
distributed by the distributor or by a sublicensee of the
distributor)
or
the licensee obtained a version of the software from a party
either
upstream
from the distributing party or on a different fork
altogether; or iii)
the
patent claims apply to software, hardware or some other
unrelated
technology.  Is a license that requires such a grant
consistent with the
definition of open source according to OSI?  If so, should
it be?  I
think
these are legitimate issues for us to waste a few keystrokes
on...

Dave
David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemelesnvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any
attachments
to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) and
may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the
intended
recipient, please notify David A. Temeles, Jr. immediately
at either
(703)
354-7905 x 230 or at dtemelesnvalaw.com, and destroy all
copies of this
message and any attachments

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelsoncrynwr.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:17 AM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative
Certification
for GPL 3.0]

Matthew Garrett writes:
 > a) the fact that license-proliferation archive
suggests that there's 
 > been no activity since last September, and 

I'm a little frustrated by that, too.  The discussions were
always
intended to be among a small group, to prevent lobbying on
behalf of
one license or another.  I thought it would happn on
license-proliferation, which is how and why I set it up. 
Instead, the
committee has used a CC list.  Once the committee's results
are
accepted by the OSI board (which should happen soon ... very
soon),
they will be published, and THEN the fighting will begin. 
Did I say
"fighting"?  I meant "discussion".

 > b) nobody seems interested in discussing where
boundaries should be 
 > drawn when it comes to patent-related license
termination

If nobody is interested in it, why bother talking about it?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
   | A computer without
Python
is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU
without
memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs,
but you can't
do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything
useful with
it.