RE: Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License

[robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>]

On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 14:16 -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > Actually, I think that 3.1 *does* pose a problem. All downstream
> > licensees need to grant a patent license *back* to Yahoo for any
> > DomainKeys-related patents. Not good. They might not want to, and our
> > software has never "forced" such a constraint on people before.
> 
> Reciprocal patent grants for open standards are common nowadays. Objecting
> to 3.1 and the Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License on that basis might put a
> lot of standards out of our reach. Properly-phrased reciprocal patent
> licenses protect the open standard itself, nothing more. In that sense, the
> DomainKeys license is fair. 

apache has gained considerable success in opening standards by vocally
refusing to implement standards which are insufficiently open. this
requires a clear policy. how open does a patent license need to be to be
considered open enough for apache?

> The Apache license does something similar in its patent defense provision in
> section 3, which protect Apache software and nothing more. Or at least it
> has the same practical effect on a downstream patent owner as the reciprocal
> patent license does in the Yahoo! license.

3.2 appears to be very similar to the clause in the AL2.0

would it be reasonable for Yahoo! to rely on 3.2 only?

(they are willing to receive license feedback so if we could present a
good argument, they may consider altering the terms.)

> We will probably have to live with the defensive and reciprocal uses of
> patents as long as there are software patents.

i suspect that there is here a question of patent policy that is going
to need to resolved. from one perspective, this is just some software
which Yahoo! claims to be patent encumbered and which they are willing
to license in a reasonable and royalty free fashion. this broader
question is our approach to code which we are informed may be patent
encumbered. given the wide and broad software patent claims approved in
the US in recent years, it may not be possible to work around them.

IMO we to start thinking about the right policy before we are forced to
block access to a project

- robert

RE: Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License

[Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>]

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> (they are willing to receive license feedback so if we could present a
> good argument, they may consider altering the terms.)

If Yahoo is interested in feedback, mine would be for them to adopt
something similar to Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (see
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which has been through
the review mill and is already deemed acceptable for open source projects
including Apache's. /Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:rdonkin@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 4:09 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License
> 
> On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 14:16 -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> > > Actually, I think that 3.1 *does* pose a problem. All downstream
> > > licensees need to grant a patent license *back* to Yahoo for any
> > > DomainKeys-related patents. Not good. They might not want to, and our
> > > software has never "forced" such a constraint on people before.
> >
> > Reciprocal patent grants for open standards are common nowadays.
> Objecting
> > to 3.1 and the Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License on that basis might put
> a
> > lot of standards out of our reach. Properly-phrased reciprocal patent
> > licenses protect the open standard itself, nothing more. In that sense,
> the
> > DomainKeys license is fair.
> 
> apache has gained considerable success in opening standards by vocally
> refusing to implement standards which are insufficiently open. this
> requires a clear policy. how open does a patent license need to be to be
> considered open enough for apache?
> 
> > The Apache license does something similar in its patent defense
> provision in
> > section 3, which protect Apache software and nothing more. Or at least
> it
> > has the same practical effect on a downstream patent owner as the
> reciprocal
> > patent license does in the Yahoo! license.
> 
> 3.2 appears to be very similar to the clause in the AL2.0
> 
> would it be reasonable for Yahoo! to rely on 3.2 only?
> 
> (they are willing to receive license feedback so if we could present a
> good argument, they may consider altering the terms.)
> 
> > We will probably have to live with the defensive and reciprocal uses of
> > patents as long as there are software patents.
> 
> i suspect that there is here a question of patent policy that is going
> to need to resolved. from one perspective, this is just some software
> which Yahoo! claims to be patent encumbered and which they are willing
> to license in a reasonable and royalty free fashion. this broader
> question is our approach to code which we are informed may be patent
> encumbered. given the wide and broad software patent claims approved in
> the US in recent years, it may not be possible to work around them.
> 
> IMO we to start thinking about the right policy before we are forced to
> block access to a project
> 
> - robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org