You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2005/07/12 23:38:40 UTC
[VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Dear Incubator PMC,
I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
the latest status at:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
Here's my +1 to get started.
Thanks,
dims
PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>.
Didn't mean to fill everyone's inbox with this message, although I *am*
excited for Beehive to be a fully-integrated part of the Apache
community. Apologies for that spam (and this spam).
Rich
Rich Feit wrote:
> Thank you, Craig! We're really looking forward to being part of the
> wider Apache community.
>
> At some point I'd love for us to figure out how page flows and Shale
> constructs can play nicely with each other.
>
> Rich
>
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
>
>> +1 (Incubator Project Mentor)
>>
>> The Beehive folks have clearly shown they understand "the Apache Way",
>> and they actually behave that way too. All the necessary i's have
>> been dotted and the t's have been crossed, and this will be a great
>> Apache TLP.
>>
>> Craig McClanahan
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear Incubator PMC,
>>>
>>> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
>>> the latest status at:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>>>
>>> Here's my +1 to get started.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> dims
>>>
>>> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
>>> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Craig! We're really looking forward to being part of the
wider Apache community.
At some point I'd love for us to figure out how page flows and Shale
constructs can play nicely with each other.
Rich
Craig McClanahan wrote:
>+1 (Incubator Project Mentor)
>
>The Beehive folks have clearly shown they understand "the Apache Way",
>and they actually behave that way too. All the necessary i's have
>been dotted and the t's have been crossed, and this will be a great
>Apache TLP.
>
>Craig McClanahan
>
>
>On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Incubator PMC,
>>
>>I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
>>the latest status at:
>>http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>>
>>Here's my +1 to get started.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>dims
>>
>>PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
>>forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>>
>>--
>>Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
+1 (Incubator Project Mentor)
The Beehive folks have clearly shown they understand "the Apache Way",
and they actually behave that way too. All the necessary i's have
been dotted and the t's have been crossed, and this will be a great
Apache TLP.
Craig McClanahan
On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Incubator PMC,
>
> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
> the latest status at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>
> Here's my +1 to get started.
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@bea.com>.
And, I'm updating the web page now.
Kenneth Tam wrote:
> I'll follow up separately with Cliff to see whether a CLA ever
> actually made it to Apache, but in any case he has been inactive since
> day 1 and should be removed.
>
> On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Incubator PMC,
>>>
>>>I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
>>>the latest status at:
>>>http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>>
>>What's the deal with the one committer without a CLA? Either
>>his CLA and account were activated and he is a committer,
>>or they weren't and he should be removed from the list.
>>
>>....Roy
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
I'll follow up separately with Cliff to see whether a CLA ever
actually made it to Apache, but in any case he has been inactive since
day 1 and should be removed.
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Dear Incubator PMC,
> >
> > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
> > the latest status at:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>
> What's the deal with the one committer without a CLA? Either
> his CLA and account were activated and he is a committer,
> or they weren't and he should be removed from the list.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Dear Incubator PMC,
>
> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
> the latest status at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
What's the deal with the one committer without a CLA? Either
his CLA and account were activated and he is a committer,
or they weren't and he should be removed from the list.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@bea.com>.
Dims--
This is great! Excited to see the result...
Thanks,
Eddie
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> FYI
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>
> Date: Jul 12, 2005 5:38 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> Dear Incubator PMC,
>
> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
> the latest status at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>
> Here's my +1 to get started.
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
>
Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 12, 2005 5:38 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Dear Incubator PMC,
I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
the latest status at:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
Here's my +1 to get started.
Thanks,
dims
PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please see
> the latest status at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
+1
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Yeah! Yeah! would you guys please vote instead of nit-picking? :)
-- dims
On 7/13/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> It's really important distinction ;)
>
> On Jul 13, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Sorry.
> >
> > On 7/12/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
> >>> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tiny correction. VP is not selected, it is recommended to the Board.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Niclas
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
It's really important distinction ;)
On Jul 13, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Sorry.
>
> On 7/12/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
>>> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>>>
>>
>> Tiny correction. VP is not selected, it is recommended to the Board.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Sorry.
On 7/12/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
> > forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
>
> Tiny correction. VP is not selected, it is recommended to the Board.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> PS: once we get this VOTE done, cliff/me will work with the ppmc on
> forming the PMC and selecting the VP.
Tiny correction. VP is not selected, it is recommended to the Board.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@apache.org>.
On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:
> Yes the current discussion on legal-discuss is wrt wss4j, but the
> question for beehive was more general: are there any patents that have
> been explicitly granted for the use of Beehive?
This is not how the question should be asked. The question is "Is
anyone aware (most particularly the Beehive PPMC / Incubator PMC) of
some patent holder claiming that Beehive may infringe on their
patent?". As far as I know, the answer is "definitely not". We
don't go out looking to see what patents some part of our projects
could potentially be violating.
> For example, have BEA
> issued any "licenses" to Apache with respect to stuff that Beehive
> implements?
BEA signed a corporate CLA (in addition to the individual CLAs signed
by the BEA employees working on the project). In that CLA, the
contributor agrees to:
"grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have
made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the
Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims
licensable by You that are necessarily infringed by Your
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of Your Contribution(s)
with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted."
So, we aren't currently worried about any contributor owning patents
that their contributions might infringe upon. We're covered there.
The issue with the wsss4j stuff was that the specification authors
made it very clear that they held essential patents to the
implementation of the specification...and some of these parties were
not the authors of the contributed code to Apache (and did not sign a
CLA or software grant to cover it).
Cliff
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 -0700, Kenneth Tam wrote:
>
>> Beehive doesn't currently have any implementations of the WS-*
>> standards, including WS-Security -- the intent was to at some point
>> look to other Apache projects that were implementing those standards
>> (I don't subscribe to legal-discuss, but I presume the discussion in
>> question is wrt WSS4J?).
>>
>> On 7/14/05, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Incubator PMC,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please
>>>>>
>>>> see
>>>>
>>>>> the latest status at:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Could someone please provide information on any patents known to
>>> apply
>>> to this project?
>>>
>>> There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the
>>> situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license
>>> for the
>>> Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers
>>> of the
>>> code must apply for a patent license separately).
>>>
>>>
>>> The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not
>>> address
>>> patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation
>>> does not
>>> apply to Beehive.
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has already been discussed...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
Yes the current discussion on legal-discuss is wrt wss4j, but the
question for beehive was more general: are there any patents that have
been explicitly granted for the use of Beehive? For example, have BEA
issued any "licenses" to Apache with respect to stuff that Beehive
implements?
Regards,
Simon
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 -0700, Kenneth Tam wrote:
> Beehive doesn't currently have any implementations of the WS-*
> standards, including WS-Security -- the intent was to at some point
> look to other Apache projects that were implementing those standards
> (I don't subscribe to legal-discuss, but I presume the discussion in
> question is wrt WSS4J?).
>
> On 7/14/05, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dear Incubator PMC,
> > > >
> > > > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please
> > > see
> > > > the latest status at:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
> >
> > Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
> > to this project?
> >
> > There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the
> > situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license for the
> > Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers of the
> > code must apply for a patent license separately).
> >
> >
> > The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address
> > patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not
> > apply to Beehive.
> >
> > Sorry if this has already been discussed...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
Beehive doesn't currently have any implementations of the WS-*
standards, including WS-Security -- the intent was to at some point
look to other Apache projects that were implementing those standards
(I don't subscribe to legal-discuss, but I presume the discussion in
question is wrt WSS4J?).
On 7/14/05, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Incubator PMC,
> > >
> > > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please
> > see
> > > the latest status at:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
>
> Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
> to this project?
>
> There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the
> situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license for the
> Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers of the
> code must apply for a patent license separately).
>
>
> The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address
> patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not
> apply to Beehive.
>
> Sorry if this has already been discussed...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:51 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Great!!! So we can make a release of WSS4J and get the code from TSIK.
> Right?
AFAIK, yes. +1 from me.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:51 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Great!!! So we can make a release of WSS4J and get the code from TSIK.
> Right?
AFAIK, yes. +1 from me.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Great!!! So we can make a release of WSS4J and get the code from TSIK. Right?
-- dims
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > All public knowledge about about WS-Security are just "claims"[1]. No
> > one has given us OR made any public statement of specific patents
> > (from BM/MSFT/Versign) that are applicable to WS-Security.
>
> > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php
>
> Umm, that statement isn't even a claim. It is a commitment to license
> if there ever will be a claim. You can and should ignore it.
>
> > If u ask me
> > it is FUD till they tell us which patents are infringed. Please note
> > that the IPR statement is dated "OASIS 26 June 2002". So EVEN if they
> > have applications pending on that date, they would have been resolved
> > one way or another by now. BUT yet, there is stony silence on which
> > specific patents are in question.
>
> That's because there are no public patents in question, so they
> cannot respond to your queries. The only ones you need to worry
> about are the actual approved patents that the patent holder
> does specifically claim.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Great!!! So we can make a release of WSS4J and get the code from TSIK. Right?
-- dims
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > All public knowledge about about WS-Security are just "claims"[1]. No
> > one has given us OR made any public statement of specific patents
> > (from BM/MSFT/Versign) that are applicable to WS-Security.
>
> > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php
>
> Umm, that statement isn't even a claim. It is a commitment to license
> if there ever will be a claim. You can and should ignore it.
>
> > If u ask me
> > it is FUD till they tell us which patents are infringed. Please note
> > that the IPR statement is dated "OASIS 26 June 2002". So EVEN if they
> > have applications pending on that date, they would have been resolved
> > one way or another by now. BUT yet, there is stony silence on which
> > specific patents are in question.
>
> That's because there are no public patents in question, so they
> cannot respond to your queries. The only ones you need to worry
> about are the actual approved patents that the patent holder
> does specifically claim.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> All public knowledge about about WS-Security are just "claims"[1]. No
> one has given us OR made any public statement of specific patents
> (from BM/MSFT/Versign) that are applicable to WS-Security.
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php
Umm, that statement isn't even a claim. It is a commitment to license
if there ever will be a claim. You can and should ignore it.
> If u ask me
> it is FUD till they tell us which patents are infringed. Please note
> that the IPR statement is dated "OASIS 26 June 2002". So EVEN if they
> have applications pending on that date, they would have been resolved
> one way or another by now. BUT yet, there is stony silence on which
> specific patents are in question.
That's because there are no public patents in question, so they
cannot respond to your queries. The only ones you need to worry
about are the actual approved patents that the patent holder
does specifically claim.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
WS-Security / TSIK (Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Simon,
This is not the right forum, we should move this to legal-discuss. i
will answer here since we are still treating TSIK under incubation.
All public knowledge about about WS-Security are just "claims"[1]. No
one has given us OR made any public statement of specific patents
(from BM/MSFT/Versign) that are applicable to WS-Security. If u ask me
it is FUD till they tell us which patents are infringed. Please note
that the IPR statement is dated "OASIS 26 June 2002". So EVEN if they
have applications pending on that date, they would have been resolved
one way or another by now. BUT yet, there is stony silence on which
specific patents are in question.
thanks,
dims
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Lawrence,
The issue is still open. we are just letting the worker bees (like
me!) to work as usual as though there is no issue. Because we cant be
in a limbo forever. Summarizing.
- Three companies IBM/Verisign/MSFT are offering license agreements
for WS-Security.
- Verisign is a non-issue because they are donating code and the
CCLA/SG/ICLA covers their patents (if they have any)
- Jeff has clarified that IBM has no patents that they have
identified, nullifying the need for having a license agreement
executed with them.
- We had an exploratory call with MSFT and will be talking more next
week. So far they have *NOT* told us whether or not they have any
patents. There is no public knowledge of existence of a patent from
MSFT that is needed for WS-Security. In the preliminary call, they did
not mention that they had a patent, they just wanted to know
background, what we are trying to do etc.
So we just want folks to focus on developing code while we sort this
with MSFT. If they tell us they have specific patents, then we are
back to square one. Why should we sign a license agreement if there
are no patents...right?
Thanks,
dims
On 7/15/05, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us a
> license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
> licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
> waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that IBM
> signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
> did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
> Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
> [Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 6:08 AM
> > To: Roy T. Fielding; Granqvist, Hans
> > Cc: Jeffrey Thompson; legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: IBM and Apache
> >
> > Awesome!! thanks. If someone pings us with a specific patent
> > #, then we will take the next step. I will make sure we have
> > a WSS4J release ASAP and unblock TSIK incubation.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > > >> IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the forms of CLAs
> > that apply
> > > >> to any project in which IBM contributes, a larger number
> > of blanket
> > > >> patent grants to any open source project (I have no idea
> > if these
> > > >> are included since no actual patents have been claimed), and a
> > > >> blanket reciprocal patent license that applies in all
> > other cases.
> > >
> > > > Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed
> > > > with IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent
> > > > license". Is it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so
> > that all of
> > > > us can review it?
> > >
> > > I was talking about the press release that IBM sent out
> > some time ago.
> > > I have no idea what is included within it. It should be on IBM's
> > > website somewhere.
> > >
> > > > First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is
> > WS-Security covered?
> > > > Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
> > > > agreement as it is already covered?
> > >
> > > As far as we are concerned, IBM has no patents covering WS-Security.
> > > Do you know of any? IBM haven't claimed any that I know about.
> > > Same goes for Verisign, unless they have some additional
> > claims that
> > > are published elsewhere.
> > >
> > > Why is this discussion even taking place? Why have we
> > suddenly lost
> > > all sense when it comes to dealing with patents, a topic
> > and concern
> > > that has been with us since day one of Apache? If there is
> > a public
> > > claim and information suggesting that it applies to our
> > software, then
> > > we deal with it. In all other cases we have no other choice but to
> > > assume that no patents apply, since ANY other action would paralyze
> > > *all* of our projects and make the ASF *more* vulnerable to
> > > infringement damages when a claim is made.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, *pending* patent applications are NOT patents.
> > >
> > > ....Roy
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
> > educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute
> > legal advice.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Jeff,
very nice :) Thoroughly enjoyed it :) :)
Wish MSFT tells us the same story as well.
-- dims
On 7/15/05, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 01:25:20 PM:
>
> > I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us
> a
> > license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
> > licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
> > waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that
> IBM
> > signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
> > did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
> >
>
> With a sense of irony that those of us that have been around here for a
> while can understand, the process went something like this (all text
> completely fictional, but it illustrates the point):
>
> <IBMer #1>: WS-Security is a great Spec. We need to submit it to a
> standards body.
> <IBMer #2>: Which one?
> <IBMer #1>: OASIS is pretty fast and efficient.
> <IBMer #2>: Yeah, but we want it to be RF, and OASIS only has a RAND
> policy.
> <IBMer #1>: Right. Hey, we can make an RF commitment anyway. Others have
> done it. And, they're working on an RF policy. That'll be done soon.
> <IBMer #2>: Great idea. When we submit the Spec to OASIS, we'll submit a
> commitment to license all necessary claims on RF terms. That'll work.
> . . .
> <OASIS>: Thanks for the Spec. Here is your working group.
> <OASIS Member #1>: We've noticed that you've made an RF commitment for your
> patents.
> <IBMer #1>: Right. We want everybody to know that we're not going
> to try to hold up this Spec and that everyone can implement it.
> <OASIS Member #1>: But where are the terms?
> <IBMer #1>: What terms?
> <OASIS Member #1>: The terms for the patent license.
> <IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Not now. But you might find one. And if you do, we
> want to know that we'll like the terms.
> <IBMer #1>: That's silly. Why not just wait until someone actually
> announces that they have a patent. You'd save a lot of time.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Because we want to make sure we have all of our ducks
> lined up now.
> <IBMer #1>: But, potentially, every company in the world could have
> a patent that reads on WS-Security.
> <OASIS Member #1>: So.
> <IBMer #1>: Does that mean that you want to negotiate patent terms
> with everybody in case they just might have a patent.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Maybe. We still want patent terms from you because you
> helped write the Spec.
> <IBMer #1>: OK, but it'll be a waste of time. Let me go talk to my
> lawyer.
> . . .
> <IBMer #1>: Here is your patent license.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Thanks. We don't like the terms. . . .
> <IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
> <OASIS Member #1>: . . .
> . . .
> <Apache>: Great Spec that WS-Security. Wish we could implement it.
> <IBMer #3>: Why can't you implement it.
> <Apache>: You have necessary patents that you won't license on terms we
> like.
> <IBMer #3>: But the terms are fine -- the same terms that apply to all
> other Internet standards.
> <Apache>: You sure?
> <IBMer #3>: Yeah.
> <Apache>: But still, we don't want to be forcing patents on our licensees
> unless we know the terms are OK.
> <IBMer #3>: I understand, but we don't have any patents.
> <Apache>: Oh. Right. So, if you didn't have any patents, why did you
> publish a patent license then.
> <IBMer #3>: [sigh]
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:04 PM 7/15/2005, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>Jeff, you should write television scripts. I don't see this being appropriate for Law & Order, but perhaps Boston Legal will find humor in it. :-)
I sure as hell did - split a gut reading his dialog :)
>[...]
>I gather that's the promise that IBM is willing to make now with respect to its WS-Security patents, if there actually are any. You are saying that you don't know of any IBM patents that read upon the standard, but if there were any, they'd be licensed on certain "royalty-free" terms.
The problem always seems to be
1) fringe players, who announce they might have IP and never
clarify, expecting RAND terms
2) royalty-free does not absolve users from applying for the
license to use the works the ASF provides; and frankly the
ASF finds additional 'registration steps' and unnecessary
and unwarranted burden on their users. [Speaking with
neither an ASF hat, nor an employers's hat.]
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache [offtopic]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
> Agreed. But in anycase, I think the point is we must stay away of even
> potencial patent treats. In the cold war, the Soviet Union never dropped
> a nuclear bomb in a city. It means this that was not a threat? ;-)
"Every line of java code is covered by at least two patents and
usually dozens more that may or may not be licensed. Asking if they
exist is a completely irrelevant question. We only care about
patents that are being actively enforced without an RF license."
- http://tinyurl.com/ap4ab
So, should we set forth and eradicate every line of Java code in ASF
repositories? I think not.
Let's put this back in perspective:
http://tinyurl.com/ddlve
http://tinyurl.com/8z63p
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache [offtopic]
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <an...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>On Saturday 16 July 2005 12:23, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>
>>but I was wondering if Microsoft have/has had a history of aggressively
>>using their patent portfolio to stop other companies, or to get royality
>>payments from 3rd parties.
>>
>>
>
>It was seen by many OpenSource advocates that the RAND demand of a fee for the
>patent covering the FAT/FAT32 filesystem was an attempt to stop open source
>efforts, such as GNU/Linux.
>
>Visio is another well-protected product with patented technology. Any attempt
>to read/create Visio file formats has been / will be hindered by MS legal
>department.
>
>
>Those are the cases I know of.
>
>
Agreed. But in anycase, I think the point is we must stay away of even
potencial patent treats. In the cold war, the Soviet Union never dropped
a nuclear bomb in a city. It means this that was not a threat? ;-)
We have already seen many examples where first they say to us: use it
with confidence, there is no problem. Soon when the product has
extended, the rules change. Between this samples, we found: MP3 and GIF
format.
I believe that we must be very careful in these things, right?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache [offtopic]
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Saturday 16 July 2005 12:23, Ian Holsman wrote:
> but I was wondering if Microsoft have/has had a history of aggressively
> using their patent portfolio to stop other companies, or to get royality
> payments from 3rd parties.
It was seen by many OpenSource advocates that the RAND demand of a fee for the
patent covering the FAT/FAT32 filesystem was an attempt to stop open source
efforts, such as GNU/Linux.
Visio is another well-protected product with patented technology. Any attempt
to read/create Visio file formats has been / will be hindered by MS legal
department.
Those are the cases I know of.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache [offtopic]
Posted by Ian Holsman <Ia...@apache.org>.
this is offtopic,
but I was wondering if Microsoft have/has had a history of aggressively
using their patent portfolio to stop other companies, or to get royality
payments from 3rd parties.
has IBM?
regards
Ian
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Jeff, you should write television scripts. I don't see this being
> appropriate for Law & Order, but perhaps Boston Legal will find humor in it.
> :-)
>
> W3C resolved the conundrum you described. In W3C everyone recognized that
> searching for and identifying patents in a large portfolio merely to license
> them royalty-free was an unrewarding task. Instead of that, W3C member
> companies promise in advance to license their Essential patents on a
> royalty-free basis and are thereby relieved from searching for or
> identifying those patents.
>
> I gather that's the promise that IBM is willing to make now with respect to
> its WS-Security patents, if there actually are any. You are saying that you
> don't know of any IBM patents that read upon the standard, but if there were
> any, they'd be licensed on certain "royalty-free" terms.
>
> Great! Thanks!
>
> Are those "royalty-free" terms the ones in your draft license? If so, I
> don't think those are "the same terms that apply to all other Internet
> standards." In fact, I hope not, because that would cause heartburn to those
> who distribute software under open source licenses. Your patent license may
> satisfy the OASIS patent policy, but that simply isn't enough nowadays.
>
> If IBM ever has patents that read on the WS-Security standard, will IBM
> promise Apache and its customers never to demand execution of licenses for
> those patents? Will Apache and its customers be restricted to conforming
> applications or can they develop non-conforming implementations? Can Apache
> and its customers create and distribute derivative works? Will IBM's patent
> defense provision be one that Apache's customers will accept? These are
> important questions so that we can prepare for possible future patent
> claims.
>
> You
>
> Best regards,
>
> /Larry
>
> P.S. We need to ask these questions also of any other company who, following
> obscure and ineffective procedures such as the OASIS one that you described
> so amusingly, might have such patents. Microsoft, for example.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:33 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: dims@apache.org; 'Roy T. Fielding'; 'Granqvist, Hans';
> legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: IBM and Apache
>
>
>
>
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 01:25:20 PM:
>
>
>>I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us a
>>license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
>>licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
>>waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that
>
> IBM
>
>>signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
>>did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
>>
>
>
> With a sense of irony that those of us that have been around here for a
> while can understand, the process went something like this (all text
> completely fictional, but it illustrates the point):
>
> <IBMer #1>: WS-Security is a great Spec. We need to submit it to a
> standards body.
> <IBMer #2>: Which one?
> <IBMer #1>: OASIS is pretty fast and efficient.
> <IBMer #2>: Yeah, but we want it to be RF, and OASIS only has a RAND
> policy.
> <IBMer #1>: Right. Hey, we can make an RF commitment anyway. Others have
> done it. And, they're working on an RF policy. That'll be done soon.
> <IBMer #2>: Great idea. When we submit the Spec to OASIS, we'll submit a
> commitment to license all necessary claims on RF terms. That'll work.
> . . .
> <OASIS>: Thanks for the Spec. Here is your working group.
> <OASIS Member #1>: We've noticed that you've made an RF commitment for your
> patents.
> <IBMer #1>: Right. We want everybody to know that we're not going
> to try to hold up this Spec and that everyone can implement it.
> <OASIS Member #1>: But where are the terms?
> <IBMer #1>: What terms?
> <OASIS Member #1>: The terms for the patent license.
> <IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Not now. But you might find one. And if you do, we
> want to know that we'll like the terms.
> <IBMer #1>: That's silly. Why not just wait until someone actually
> announces that they have a patent. You'd save a lot of time.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Because we want to make sure we have all of our ducks
> lined up now.
> <IBMer #1>: But, potentially, every company in the world could have
> a patent that reads on WS-Security.
> <OASIS Member #1>: So.
> <IBMer #1>: Does that mean that you want to negotiate patent terms
> with everybody in case they just might have a patent.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Maybe. We still want patent terms from you because you
> helped write the Spec.
> <IBMer #1>: OK, but it'll be a waste of time. Let me go talk to my
> lawyer.
> . . .
> <IBMer #1>: Here is your patent license.
> <OASIS Member #1>: Thanks. We don't like the terms. . . .
> <IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
> <OASIS Member #1>: . . .
> . . .
> <Apache>: Great Spec that WS-Security. Wish we could implement it.
> <IBMer #3>: Why can't you implement it.
> <Apache>: You have necessary patents that you won't license on terms we
> like.
> <IBMer #3>: But the terms are fine -- the same terms that apply to all
> other Internet standards.
> <Apache>: You sure?
> <IBMer #3>: Yeah.
> <Apache>: But still, we don't want to be forcing patents on our licensees
> unless we know the terms are OK.
> <IBMer #3>: I understand, but we don't have any patents.
> <Apache>: Oh. Right. So, if you didn't have any patents, why did you
> publish a patent license then.
> <IBMer #3>: [sigh]
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 04:56 PM 7/18/2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>Yes, I agree. It's also a case of determining how many interesting projects Apache is going to abandon because a patent holder wants to keep track of the number of implementations in the market.
At the present rate of RAND / RF licensing adoption by varied
standards bodies; quite alot I think :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
I'll also allow my 2pc: Apache foundation is a recognized major
open-source player, I feel that the last announcement of "Apache
Foundation trapped by patent" is considerably wrong and would like to
express the contrary:
"WS-I Security makers trapped by their patents"
namely. I trust the ASF to have enough recognition to be an example: if
the ASF cannot host such a problem, there's an issue and, other
open-source institutions will also not take it. Even Systinet should be
careful...
I might make too much esteem of ASF but I do believe it has enough
visibility for this.
Keep up the good work ASF Legal advisors!
paul
Le 21 juil. 05, à 05:37, Simon Kitching a écrit :
> If OASIS want to issue specs with such potential problems, then
> development should also be hosted by OASIS, not by Apache. Why doesn't
> OASIS host such projects? Perhaps because they don't have a reputation
> as an open-source-friendly institution?
>
> So the time to decide on what specifications are and are not acceptable
> as Apache projects is *before* the project starts, not when the first
> patent problem occurs. Jeffrey suggested in an earlier email that an
> ASF
> group should be formed to address patent-related issues. I think this
> is
> exactly the right solution - that group can address whether the
> WS-Security spec is sufficiently free to allow implementation at Apache
> or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 10:57 -0400, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote on 07/19/2005 08:45:00
> PM:
>
> > Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Pardon me for interjecting. I've been watching this discussion
> wondering
> > if it will ever come to a reasonable conclusion. I have my doubts.
> >
> I have no doubts at all. It'll never conclude. :-)
>
> Actually, I hinted in a separate note that Apache will end up putting
> more meat on these policies as actual cases come up. Until that time,
> this discussion is useful to get people thinking about the issues and
> what Apache's approach will be, but in the end, until there is a real
> patent that reads on a real project with real code, it's all
> hypothetical.
>
> As such, the discussion is coming to its natural conclusion. The
> issues have been raised and people are thinking. When the next patent
> comes up, the real discussion will begin again.
I sincerely hope that is *not* the case.
The point here is to avoid such situations, by convincing bodies such as
OASIS to ensure their specifications are open-source-friendly (that
means RF and no need for derived works to "execute" patent licenses).
After discussions with Apache, Sun changed legal conditions to allow the
continued existence of the Jakarta project. The W3C patent policy
changed due to people expressing their opposition to the initial
proposals. Waiting until problems appear is not the best solution.
There's no way to ensure that every project at Apache is totally
patent-problem-free (in fact, that's one of the major problems with the
patent system). However Apache should be explicitly avoiding projects
that implement specifications that have acknowledged patent issues and
specifications for which the *contributors* are not required to grant
patent licenses on open-source-friendly terms for that project and its
derivative works.
For Apache to host a project that absorbs man-years of free
contributions, then have a patent problem pop up may be unavoidable
given the patent system of the USA, and would not be Apache's fault.
Having a patent claim filed by a *contributor* to the specification that
the project implements would, however, be Apache's fault - it's a
situation that can be avoided simply by not hosting such projects. And
note that even RF patent licensing isn't good enough if "execution" is
required.
If OASIS want to issue specs with such potential problems, then
development should also be hosted by OASIS, not by Apache. Why doesn't
OASIS host such projects? Perhaps because they don't have a reputation
as an open-source-friendly institution?
So the time to decide on what specifications are and are not acceptable
as Apache projects is *before* the project starts, not when the first
patent problem occurs. Jeffrey suggested in an earlier email that an ASF
group should be formed to address patent-related issues. I think this is
exactly the right solution - that group can address whether the
WS-Security spec is sufficiently free to allow implementation at Apache
or not.
Regards,
Simon
PS: As Niclas Hedhman recently noted, your (Jeffrey) contribution to
this discussion is much appreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote on 07/19/2005 08:45:00 PM:
> Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>
> Pardon me for interjecting. I've been watching this discussion wondering
> if it will ever come to a reasonable conclusion. I have my doubts.
>
I have no doubts at all. It'll never conclude. :-)
Actually, I hinted in a separate note that Apache will end up putting more
meat on these policies as actual cases come up. Until that time, this
discussion is useful to get people thinking about the issues and what
Apache's approach will be, but in the end, until there is a real patent
that reads on a real project with real code, it's all hypothetical.
As such, the discussion is coming to its natural conclusion. The issues
have been raised and people are thinking. When the next patent comes up,
the real discussion will begin again.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
Pardon me for interjecting. I've been watching this discussion wondering
if it will ever come to a reasonable conclusion. I have my doubts.
>
>I responded more in depth in another note, but I don't think I'm missing
>the point (but then, that's exactly what you would expect me to say, isn't
>it).
>
>
I think you are. I'll respond to that one.
>First point: This isn't an exception. Apache is still providing all of
>the rights on which I expect your counsel made his/her opinion. Remember
>this is a discussion about THIRD PARTY patent rights, not patents held by
>the folks who helped write the Apache implementation (which is what ASL2.0
>addresses).
>
>Second point: In my hypothetical Apache did some additional homework and
>made sure that the known third party patent holders have committed to make
>RF licenses available to Apache's licensees. There is absolutely nothing
>in Apache's license or in the Open Source Definition that requires that
>Apache do that. Its a very nice thing for Apache to do, but certainly not
>required. After having done that work, they announce the good news that
>all known patent holders have agreed. The one twist is that one requires
>a signed license for each implementation. Apache's signature covers
>Apache's work and those who use it. Licensees which wish to use Apache's
>code as a basis for a new implementation would need to get their own
>license. Now, is that the most desirable result, no. But, it doesn't
>violate the principles on which Apache was founded.
>
>
I believe that it does. Apache software is developed so that it can be
freely used in virtually any fashion desired by Apache's "customers".
In crude terms, this means that IBM (for example) can take the Http
server and package it with any of its products without having to go to
Microsoft (for example) and registering, with them or obtaining any kind
of a license from them..
>I don't want to put words in the mouth of your lawyer, but I'd be ecstatic
>if my clients had all of that work done before coming to me.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
>(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
>(web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote on 07/20/2005 01:52:32 AM:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 01:11, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > Second point: In my hypothetical Apache did some additional homework
and
> > made sure that the known third party patent holders have committed to
make
> > RF licenses available to Apache's licensees. There is absolutely
nothing
> > in Apache's license or in the Open Source Definition that requires
that
> > Apache do that. Its a very nice thing for Apache to do, but certainly
not
> > required.
>
> Sorry, I think you have missed the ASF policies here. Any *known*
> encumberance, such as Patent claims/required patent license, is an IP
issue
> and covered by the general Board directive; Circumvent or Terminate.
>
I'm aware of Apache's general policy on that point. I certainly agree
that if there are unlicensed patents or patents that are only available on
terms that contradict Apache's policies, then Apache needs to take a
strong stance and "Circumvent or Terminate" is perfectly appropriate, and
desired.
The question begged by my statement is, what exactly does it mean to
"contradict Apache's policies"?
I'm not aware of any instance where Apache has had to, up to this point,
terminate a project because a patent holder's license terms weren't
acceptable. I expect that as Apache gets deeper into this, and third
parties start showing up with patents, experience will help answer that
question.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 01:11, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
Before I forget; Jeffrey, I am very happy you are taking the time and "pushing
your side of the coin". I think I and others have learned a lot in this
thread.
> Second point: In my hypothetical Apache did some additional homework and
> made sure that the known third party patent holders have committed to make
> RF licenses available to Apache's licensees. There is absolutely nothing
> in Apache's license or in the Open Source Definition that requires that
> Apache do that. Its a very nice thing for Apache to do, but certainly not
> required.
Sorry, I think you have missed the ASF policies here. Any *known*
encumberance, such as Patent claims/required patent license, is an IP issue
and covered by the general Board directive; Circumvent or Terminate.
As Simon says; It is more than "to the letter of the law", it is about
principles and ethics.
Personally, I will feel sad if/when certain specifications can not be
implemented by ASF, due to these policies, but I honestly think the ASF
stance will prevail given enough time.
Where that will take us is probably not written yet, whether ASF forms a
standards process/body, software patents will vanish, or less "ASF friendly"
standards will become "second-class citizens", I don't know, but I think we
are in a transitional period of time.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote on 07/19/2005 10:35:10
AM:
> > On Tuesday 19 July 2005 20:45, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > But in the end of the day, regardless of the internal thought
processes of
> > the patent holder, if it insists on signed licenses, is that a
sufficient
> > reason for Apache to terminate a project?
>
> You miss the point, at least IMO.
>
> Currently, my companies policy is: Whatever is licensed by ASL 1 or 2,
> feel free to use it for internal use or for distribution to customers.
>
> If the staff counsel knew, that ASL licensed software allows
> "exceptions", then I could not use such software without an explicit
> "ok". Can you estimate your own legal departments interest in such an
> issue? Well, our legal department isn't interested any more. :-)
I responded more in depth in another note, but I don't think I'm missing
the point (but then, that's exactly what you would expect me to say, isn't
it).
First point: This isn't an exception. Apache is still providing all of
the rights on which I expect your counsel made his/her opinion. Remember
this is a discussion about THIRD PARTY patent rights, not patents held by
the folks who helped write the Apache implementation (which is what ASL2.0
addresses).
Second point: In my hypothetical Apache did some additional homework and
made sure that the known third party patent holders have committed to make
RF licenses available to Apache's licensees. There is absolutely nothing
in Apache's license or in the Open Source Definition that requires that
Apache do that. Its a very nice thing for Apache to do, but certainly not
required. After having done that work, they announce the good news that
all known patent holders have agreed. The one twist is that one requires
a signed license for each implementation. Apache's signature covers
Apache's work and those who use it. Licensees which wish to use Apache's
code as a basis for a new implementation would need to get their own
license. Now, is that the most desirable result, no. But, it doesn't
violate the principles on which Apache was founded.
I don't want to put words in the mouth of your lawyer, but I'd be ecstatic
if my clients had all of that work done before coming to me.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> On Tuesday 19 July 2005 20:45, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> But in the end of the day, regardless of the internal thought processes of
> the patent holder, if it insists on signed licenses, is that a sufficient
> reason for Apache to terminate a project?
You miss the point, at least IMO.
Currently, my companies policy is: Whatever is licensed by ASL 1 or 2,
feel free to use it for internal use or for distribution to customers.
If the staff counsel knew, that ASL licensed software allows
"exceptions", then I could not use such software without an explicit
"ok". Can you estimate your own legal departments interest in such an
issue? Well, our legal department isn't interested any more. :-)
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 20:45, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> But in the end of the day, regardless of the internal thought processes of
> the patent holder, if it insists on signed licenses, is that a sufficient
> reason for Apache to terminate a project?
AFAICT, currently the general directive from the Board would mean terminate.
Whether the Board is open to exceptions is something I don't want to
speculate around.
Essentially, it is not so much that it is difficult to go to a site and click,
download, print, sign, fax ... whatever, BUT;
1. For many, that means sending those paper to legal department for
evaluation, as the "blanket approval" from legal on Apache codebases no
longer applies.
2. Multiply potentially with a dozen or more different variants.
3. Future pressure from other Contributors to make similar variants, for
Copyrights or Patent issues, on RF terms, borderline cases, and so forth.
I think that could quickly become a burden, not only for the users but for ASF
as well. Personally, I think ASF should stick to its principles and rather
choose not to implement/accept, than compromise.
> > Note that this is also in violation of OSD #7.
> > 7. Distribution of License
> > The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> > program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> > additional license by those parties.
> OSD only applies to software licenses, not to these types of
> patent commitments. Think orthogonal (in the right angle sense).
No. It applies to Open Source Software! An Apache project publishes software
and to be called OpenSource by the OSD, it must comply by those criteria.
Some of OSD clauses speak of "the license" other speak of "the program",
including OSD #7.
<quote>
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by
those parties.
</quote>
And the "additional license" text does not include or exclude what type of
license that may be.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/18/2005 07:17:04 PM:
> Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>> It's also a case of determining how many interesting projects Apache
>> is going to abandon because a patent holder wants to keep track of
>> the number of implementations in the market.
> Can we please simplify.... It may be easier to deal with this if we
> talk about IBM and Apache rather than <any company> and Apache.
Well, we had been talking about IBM and WS-Security, but that seems to be
closed. I've been thinking, and writing, about what Apache's general
policy should be. What is the MINIMUM Apache would need to do an
implementation of a Spec, vs. what would be helpful to Apache's mission of
distributing useful state-of-the-art software under Apache's chosen
license.
Using IBM as a foil to discuss the general policy is possible, but
probably not that helpful. I expect that IBM would tend to be more
flexible that most other patent holders when it comes to Apache -- that
is, assuming that there was a real issue (e.g., a project with real
patents involved).
> It
> would be more helpful if IBM leads rather than follows policies that
> were developed by standards organizations without open source input.
Yep, I agree with that statement. I expect though that we might not agree
on exactly what that statement means.
> Will IBM insist on structuring its patent licenses to Apache so that
> it requires distributors of copies and implementers of derivative
> works to sign a new license with YOUR COMPANY?
I expect not. As I mentioned much, much earlier in this series of
threads, a number of us are advocating a much more Open Source friendly
patent license. One that doesn't require execution by the licensee. That
said, without a real issue, its hard getting busy people to go back and
rework things closed 3 years ago.
> If so, why?
Not so.
> Just
> because you want to "keep track of the number of implementations in
> the market"?
Nope. That is an oft cited reason why some folks want signed licenses.
Another is to document and cement the cross-license that is usually
included. Its not unreasonable for a patent holder to want to make sure
that it is not opening itself up to patent lawsuits by committing to RF
licenses to its patents. Some patent holders that hold patents primarily
for defensive purposes get nervous that way. From my discussions with the
folks who write IBM's licenses, that is one of the concerns that drove our
initial approach. (If I had to guess, I'd say that another factor was
habit . . . ) We've been doing creative thinking, though, and as I
mentioned, I expect that if and when another real issues comes up (either
we identify real patents for an existing standard or do another round of
patent commitments) we'll have made progress.
> Why is that IBM's concern with relation to Apache's
> open source software?
Its not. It was an example.
> That seems like an awfully weak justification
> to warrant imposing such a burden.
What burden. If someone is going to create an implementation of a
standard and put it on the market, presumably spending dozens or hundreds
of programmer-months doing so, is it a burden to ask someone to go to a
website, print off a form, sign it, and mail it in -- 15 minutes of work?
I realize that its annoying, but calling it a "burden" is an
overstatement.
Again, the main point that I want to make in this discussion is that
Apache needs a stated policy that it is willing to live by. All of the
points you bring up are perfectly valid and when Apache approaches the
patent holder and asks for some of the NICE TO HAVEs on my list, we should
bring them up. But in the end of the day, regardless of the internal
thought processes of the patent holder, if it insists on signed licenses,
is that a sufficient reason for Apache to terminate a project? I wouldn't
think so.
>
> Note that this is also in violation of OSD #7.
> 7. Distribution of License
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> additional license by those parties.
OSD only applies to software licenses, not to these types of patent
commitments. Think orthogonal (in the right angle sense).
> /Larry Rosen
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
It's also a case of determining how many interesting projects Apache is
going to abandon because a patent holder wants to keep track of the number
of implementations in the market.
Can we please simplify.... It may be easier to deal with this if we talk
about IBM and Apache rather than <any company> and Apache. It would be more
helpful if IBM leads rather than follows policies that were developed by
standards organizations without open source input. Will IBM insist on
structuring its patent licenses to Apache so that it requires distributors
of copies and implementers of derivative works to sign a new license with
YOUR COMPANY? If so, why? Just because you want to "keep track of the number
of implementations in the market"? Why is that IBM's concern with relation
to Apache's open source software? That seems like an awfully weak
justification to warrant imposing such a burden.
Note that this is also in violation of OSD #7.
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by
those parties.
/Larry Rosen
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote on 07/18/2005 05:18:45
PM:
> At 03:53 PM 7/18/2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>
> >NICE TO HAVEs
> >c) Helpful: A really easy PCo process for obtaining that license
> -- no paperwork (maybe a click thru on a website, or something like
that)
> >d) More helpful: An automatic license from PCo to all recipients
> of the Apache implementation that would cover their implementations
> derived from it. (That could be part of Apache's license -- people
> creating new implementations from Apache's code could be covered as
> "Additional Licensees". Or, it could be separate)
> >e) Most helpful: An license that automatically covers all
> implementations of the standard regardless of whether derived from
> Apache's code. (would probably have to be separate)
>
> IMHO, and from discussions on other channels, it's my impression
> that d) is the minimal acceptable level of 'help' for users. It's
> been suggested that e) is the minimum since, at any arbitrary point
> in time, the PCo could choose to *stop* granting additional licenses,
> or create additional restrictions, thus killing a project.
Please note that I indicated the "b)" should be binding -- that is they
can't just decide to stop providing those licenses.
And selecting "d)" as the minimum would disqualify any standards created
by any standards body which permits the patent holders to draft their own
licenses, which, I believe, is pretty much all of them.
<snip>
>
> This is going to be a case of going to the foundation and asking what
> level of pain are we willing to inflict on users and devs, and then
> conforming our projects and licensing around that.
>
Yes, I agree. It's also a case of determining how many interesting
projects Apache is going to abandon because a patent holder wants to keep
track of the number of implementations in the market.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:53 PM 7/18/2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>NICE TO HAVEs
>c) Helpful: A really easy PCo process for obtaining that license -- no paperwork (maybe a click thru on a website, or something like that)
>d) More helpful: An automatic license from PCo to all recipients of the Apache implementation that would cover their implementations derived from it. (That could be part of Apache's license -- people creating new implementations from Apache's code could be covered as "Additional Licensees". Or, it could be separate)
>e) Most helpful: An license that automatically covers all implementations of the standard regardless of whether derived from Apache's code. (would probably have to be separate)
IMHO, and from discussions on other channels, it's my impression
that d) is the minimal acceptable level of 'help' for users. It's
been suggested that e) is the minimum since, at any arbitrary point
in time, the PCo could choose to *stop* granting additional licenses,
or create additional restrictions, thus killing a project.
It's been my understanding that, if folks download a tarball or binary
to use, there should be no restrictions from them simply using it in
terms of external, 3rd party licenses. And that, if there are any
small requirements to modify the code, they should be in the form of
an unbreakable agreement, not a sublicense scenario. Perpetual RF
might be considered, RAND would not. And some even think that just
a perpetual RF is too much of an onus against calling the software
'open'.
This is going to be a case of going to the foundation and asking what
level of pain are we willing to inflict on users and devs, and then
conforming our projects and licensing around that.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote on 07/18/2005 03:09:52 PM:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 23:02, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > However, it is more important to know what the minimally acceptable
> > situation is.
>
> I think all of ASF is about this;
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>
> so that is the minimal acceptable situation.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
Be careful what you wish for. That license only applies to code
contributed by a contributor. People and companies that haven't
contributed code to a project have no obligation at all under that
license. I don't expect that you mean that as long as IBM doesn't
contribute code to Apache's WS-Security implementation then we have no
obligation at all.
Patent licenses which are independent of code (e.g., IBM's patent pledge
or these standards-related patent commitments) are orthogonal to the
Apache license, and things fall apart if we try to force them to be
parallel).
So, the real question is, what is the commitment (or license) that Apache
should require of an unrelated third party. Assume the following facts:
1) A standard is developed in W3C/OASIS/ECMA/wherever.
2) An implementation is created in Apache.
3) PCo shows up. It didn't help develop the Std and didn't help write
the Apache code.
4) PCo has a patent that is central to the standard and is under no
current obligation to license it -- people in the standards body probably
have an obligation of some sort; people that contributed to the Apache
implementation certainly do; but, PCo doesn't.
What do we do? If PCo wants to block implementations or insists on per
copy royalties, or some such business, then we have a real problem.
However, if we assume that PCo is willing to work with Apache and identify
a reasonable solution that would let Apache continue its work. What do we
need?
NEED TO HAVEs
a) A license that covers Apache's creation and distribution of the
project. (As I mentioned before, the doctrine of patent exhaustion covers
the users of Apache's implementations, so this goes a long way.)
b) A binding commitment by PCo to Apache that it will make any necessary
claims available to Apache's licensees royalty free for any
implementations that they create using the Apache code.
NICE TO HAVEs
c) Helpful: A really easy PCo process for obtaining that license -- no
paperwork (maybe a click thru on a website, or something like that)
d) More helpful: An automatic license from PCo to all recipients of the
Apache implementation that would cover their implementations derived from
it. (That could be part of Apache's license -- people creating new
implementations from Apache's code could be covered as "Additional
Licensees". Or, it could be separate)
e) Most helpful: An license that automatically covers all
implementations of the standard regardless of whether derived from
Apache's code. (would probably have to be separate)
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 18 July 2005 23:02, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> However, it is more important to know what the minimally acceptable
> situation is.
I think all of ASF is about this;
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
so that is the minimal acceptable situation.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
One thing that I think has gone unmentioned in this discussion (perhaps
because many of us consider it too obvious) is that this is not just a
discussion about the letter of the law.
The free and open source software movement is an ethical movement as
well as a technical one. So the goal is not just to keep to the letter
of the various open-source definitions and licenses but to their spirits
as well.
Suppose an ethical investment fund's managers were to realise that while
they were prohibited from investing in tobacco they weren't
*technically* prohibited from investing in land then leasing that land
back to tobacco farmers. The fact that they *could* do such a thing
doesn't mean it would be wise or ethical for them to do so.
The exact ethical stand of the ASF as a whole is probably not tightly
defined, but I think a significant number of current ASF members and
committers would view the ASF as a place where shared development of
software occurs *with the goal of making that software freely reusable
by any person in any manner*. And I don't believe that producing
software which requires the creators of derived products to sign license
agreements with various corporations fits with that ethical goal.
I don't mean that producing such software is inherently evil. But I do
believe there is a difference between what many members of the ASF want
Apache to be and what many large corporations want Apache to be (or to
become). If apache stays true to the former then there may be some
specifications whose freely-available (I won't say open-source)
implementations have to be developed somewhere other than at the ASF. If
the latter, then the ASF may lose some members and some respect within
the wider open-source community.
The most frustrating part of all is that this debate is completely
irrelevant for places where software patents are not applicable. I find
it a shame to be arguing against the implementation of certain
specifications because they cause unreasonable burdens on developers in
the USA and Australia (anywhere else??) when such code is entirely
burden-free in my country as any Microsoft or IBM or other patents are
not valid here -- well, at least not yet!
The nicest solution, however, to this issue is to persuade the
specification-issuing bodies to ensure that all contributors to their
specs provide patent license that generally behave like copyright, ie do
not need to be "executed" (is that the right term?) for derived works.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 11:04:47 PM:
> Jeff, you should write television scripts.
But only on Fridays.
<snip>
> Are those "royalty-free" terms the ones in your draft license? If
> so, I don't think those are "the same terms that apply to all other
> Internet standards." In fact, I hope not, because that would cause
> heartburn to those who distribute software under open source
> licenses. Your patent license may satisfy the OASIS patent policy,
> but that simply isn't enough nowadays.
>
> If IBM ever has patents that read on the WS-Security standard, will
> IBM promise Apache and its customers never to demand execution of
> licenses for those patents? Will Apache and its customers be
> restricted to conforming applications or can they develop non-
> conforming implementations? Can Apache and its customers create and
> distribute derivative works? Will IBM's patent defense provision be
> one that Apache's customers will accept? These are important
> questions so that we can prepare for possible future patent claims.
I understand your questions and I believe I understand why you are asking
them, but I'm a bit confused. You held up the W3C policy as a model, but
I don't see anywhere in that policy where your issues are addressed. Does
the W3C policy prohibit licensors from requiring signed licenses? Does
W3C require patent holders to license their necessary claims for code that
implements the specifications wrong or which intentionally fractures the
spec? Does W3C require that the licenses be sublicenseable? Some of
these may be addressed and I may have missed them. If so, please point
them out and I'll stand (and/or sit) corrected. Don't get me wrong. I'm
not saying that these wouldn't be good ideas (though I wonder why a
standards body would want to give licensees the OK to fracture
specifications), I'm saying that most patent holders aren't doing them
because they aren't required by any of the standards bodies.
But, we've strayed from Apache's issues to a general standards process
policy discussion. From Apache's perspective, the most important issues
is how Apache determines whether or not any particular specification
should be implemented by Apache. In such a discussion, its nice to know
what the ideal patent licenses (or patent commitments) would be. Full
freedom for all Apache licensees to do anything with the code at all would
be great for the licensees. However, it is more important to know what
the minimally acceptable situation is.
In Apache's case: (1) they absolutely need to be covered by any required
patent licenses and (2) they can't set up their licensees for a lawsuit or
mandatory patent licensing fees. Everything else is gravy (one man's
opinion, I know). If Apache's licensees need to sign a license with a
patent holder in order to create a new implementation, that's somewhat
annoying, but not fatal.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jeff, you should write television scripts. I don't see this being
appropriate for Law & Order, but perhaps Boston Legal will find humor in it.
:-)
W3C resolved the conundrum you described. In W3C everyone recognized that
searching for and identifying patents in a large portfolio merely to license
them royalty-free was an unrewarding task. Instead of that, W3C member
companies promise in advance to license their Essential patents on a
royalty-free basis and are thereby relieved from searching for or
identifying those patents.
I gather that's the promise that IBM is willing to make now with respect to
its WS-Security patents, if there actually are any. You are saying that you
don't know of any IBM patents that read upon the standard, but if there were
any, they'd be licensed on certain "royalty-free" terms.
Great! Thanks!
Are those "royalty-free" terms the ones in your draft license? If so, I
don't think those are "the same terms that apply to all other Internet
standards." In fact, I hope not, because that would cause heartburn to those
who distribute software under open source licenses. Your patent license may
satisfy the OASIS patent policy, but that simply isn't enough nowadays.
If IBM ever has patents that read on the WS-Security standard, will IBM
promise Apache and its customers never to demand execution of licenses for
those patents? Will Apache and its customers be restricted to conforming
applications or can they develop non-conforming implementations? Can Apache
and its customers create and distribute derivative works? Will IBM's patent
defense provision be one that Apache's customers will accept? These are
important questions so that we can prepare for possible future patent
claims.
You
Best regards,
/Larry
P.S. We need to ask these questions also of any other company who, following
obscure and ineffective procedures such as the OASIS one that you described
so amusingly, might have such patents. Microsoft, for example.
_____
From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:33 PM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: dims@apache.org; 'Roy T. Fielding'; 'Granqvist, Hans';
legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: IBM and Apache
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 01:25:20 PM:
> I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us a
> license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
> licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
> waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that
IBM
> signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
> did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
>
With a sense of irony that those of us that have been around here for a
while can understand, the process went something like this (all text
completely fictional, but it illustrates the point):
<IBMer #1>: WS-Security is a great Spec. We need to submit it to a
standards body.
<IBMer #2>: Which one?
<IBMer #1>: OASIS is pretty fast and efficient.
<IBMer #2>: Yeah, but we want it to be RF, and OASIS only has a RAND
policy.
<IBMer #1>: Right. Hey, we can make an RF commitment anyway. Others have
done it. And, they're working on an RF policy. That'll be done soon.
<IBMer #2>: Great idea. When we submit the Spec to OASIS, we'll submit a
commitment to license all necessary claims on RF terms. That'll work.
. . .
<OASIS>: Thanks for the Spec. Here is your working group.
<OASIS Member #1>: We've noticed that you've made an RF commitment for your
patents.
<IBMer #1>: Right. We want everybody to know that we're not going
to try to hold up this Spec and that everyone can implement it.
<OASIS Member #1>: But where are the terms?
<IBMer #1>: What terms?
<OASIS Member #1>: The terms for the patent license.
<IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
<OASIS Member #1>: Not now. But you might find one. And if you do, we
want to know that we'll like the terms.
<IBMer #1>: That's silly. Why not just wait until someone actually
announces that they have a patent. You'd save a lot of time.
<OASIS Member #1>: Because we want to make sure we have all of our ducks
lined up now.
<IBMer #1>: But, potentially, every company in the world could have
a patent that reads on WS-Security.
<OASIS Member #1>: So.
<IBMer #1>: Does that mean that you want to negotiate patent terms
with everybody in case they just might have a patent.
<OASIS Member #1>: Maybe. We still want patent terms from you because you
helped write the Spec.
<IBMer #1>: OK, but it'll be a waste of time. Let me go talk to my
lawyer.
. . .
<IBMer #1>: Here is your patent license.
<OASIS Member #1>: Thanks. We don't like the terms. . . .
<IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
<OASIS Member #1>: . . .
. . .
<Apache>: Great Spec that WS-Security. Wish we could implement it.
<IBMer #3>: Why can't you implement it.
<Apache>: You have necessary patents that you won't license on terms we
like.
<IBMer #3>: But the terms are fine -- the same terms that apply to all
other Internet standards.
<Apache>: You sure?
<IBMer #3>: Yeah.
<Apache>: But still, we don't want to be forcing patents on our licensees
unless we know the terms are OK.
<IBMer #3>: I understand, but we don't have any patents.
<Apache>: Oh. Right. So, if you didn't have any patents, why did you
publish a patent license then.
<IBMer #3>: [sigh]
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 01:25:20 PM:
> I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us
a
> license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
> licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
> waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that
IBM
> signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)?
When
> did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
>
With a sense of irony that those of us that have been around here for a
while can understand, the process went something like this (all text
completely fictional, but it illustrates the point):
<IBMer #1>: WS-Security is a great Spec. We need to submit it to a
standards body.
<IBMer #2>: Which one?
<IBMer #1>: OASIS is pretty fast and efficient.
<IBMer #2>: Yeah, but we want it to be RF, and OASIS only has a RAND
policy.
<IBMer #1>: Right. Hey, we can make an RF commitment anyway. Others
have done it. And, they're working on an RF policy. That'll be done
soon.
<IBMer #2>: Great idea. When we submit the Spec to OASIS, we'll submit a
commitment to license all necessary claims on RF terms. That'll work.
. . .
<OASIS>: Thanks for the Spec. Here is your working group.
<OASIS Member #1>: We've noticed that you've made an RF commitment for
your patents.
<IBMer #1>: Right. We want everybody to know that we're not going
to try to hold up this Spec and that everyone can implement it.
<OASIS Member #1>: But where are the terms?
<IBMer #1>: What terms?
<OASIS Member #1>: The terms for the patent license.
<IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
<OASIS Member #1>: Not now. But you might find one. And if you do, we
want to know that we'll like the terms.
<IBMer #1>: That's silly. Why not just wait until someone
actually announces that they have a patent. You'd save a lot of time.
<OASIS Member #1>: Because we want to make sure we have all of our ducks
lined up now.
<IBMer #1>: But, potentially, every company in the world could
have a patent that reads on WS-Security.
<OASIS Member #1>: So.
<IBMer #1>: Does that mean that you want to negotiate patent terms
with everybody in case they just might have a patent.
<OASIS Member #1>: Maybe. We still want patent terms from you because
you helped write the Spec.
<IBMer #1>: OK, but it'll be a waste of time. Let me go talk to
my lawyer.
. . .
<IBMer #1>: Here is your patent license.
<OASIS Member #1>: Thanks. We don't like the terms. . . .
<IBMer #1>: But we don't have any patents.
<OASIS Member #1>: . . .
. . .
<Apache>: Great Spec that WS-Security. Wish we could implement it.
<IBMer #3>: Why can't you implement it.
<Apache>: You have necessary patents that you won't license on terms we
like.
<IBMer #3>: But the terms are fine -- the same terms that apply to all
other Internet standards.
<Apache>: You sure?
<IBMer #3>: Yeah.
<Apache>: But still, we don't want to be forcing patents on our
licensees unless we know the terms are OK.
<IBMer #3>: I understand, but we don't have any patents.
<Apache>: Oh. Right. So, if you didn't have any patents, why did you
publish a patent license then.
<IBMer #3>: [sigh]
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
RE: IBM and Apache
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us a
license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that IBM
signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
[Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 6:08 AM
> To: Roy T. Fielding; Granqvist, Hans
> Cc: Jeffrey Thompson; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: IBM and Apache
>
> Awesome!! thanks. If someone pings us with a specific patent
> #, then we will take the next step. I will make sure we have
> a WSS4J release ASAP and unblock TSIK incubation.
>
> thanks,
> -- dims
>
> On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > >> IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the forms of CLAs
> that apply
> > >> to any project in which IBM contributes, a larger number
> of blanket
> > >> patent grants to any open source project (I have no idea
> if these
> > >> are included since no actual patents have been claimed), and a
> > >> blanket reciprocal patent license that applies in all
> other cases.
> >
> > > Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed
> > > with IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent
> > > license". Is it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so
> that all of
> > > us can review it?
> >
> > I was talking about the press release that IBM sent out
> some time ago.
> > I have no idea what is included within it. It should be on IBM's
> > website somewhere.
> >
> > > First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is
> WS-Security covered?
> > > Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
> > > agreement as it is already covered?
> >
> > As far as we are concerned, IBM has no patents covering WS-Security.
> > Do you know of any? IBM haven't claimed any that I know about.
> > Same goes for Verisign, unless they have some additional
> claims that
> > are published elsewhere.
> >
> > Why is this discussion even taking place? Why have we
> suddenly lost
> > all sense when it comes to dealing with patents, a topic
> and concern
> > that has been with us since day one of Apache? If there is
> a public
> > claim and information suggesting that it applies to our
> software, then
> > we deal with it. In all other cases we have no other choice but to
> > assume that no patents apply, since ANY other action would paralyze
> > *all* of our projects and make the ASF *more* vulnerable to
> > infringement damages when a claim is made.
> >
> > Furthermore, *pending* patent applications are NOT patents.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
> educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute
> legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Awesome!! thanks. If someone pings us with a specific patent #, then
we will take the next step. I will make sure we have a WSS4J release
ASAP and unblock TSIK incubation.
thanks,
-- dims
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> >> IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
> >> forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
> >> a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
> >> (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
> >> been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
> >> in all other cases.
>
> > Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed with
> > IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent license". Is
> > it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so that all of us can review
> > it?
>
> I was talking about the press release that IBM sent out some time ago.
> I have no idea what is included within it. It should be on IBM's
> website somewhere.
>
> > First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is WS-Security covered?
> > Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
> > agreement as it is already covered?
>
> As far as we are concerned, IBM has no patents covering WS-Security.
> Do you know of any? IBM haven't claimed any that I know about.
> Same goes for Verisign, unless they have some additional claims
> that are published elsewhere.
>
> Why is this discussion even taking place? Why have we suddenly
> lost all sense when it comes to dealing with patents, a topic and
> concern that has been with us since day one of Apache? If there
> is a public claim and information suggesting that it applies to our
> software, then we deal with it. In all other cases we have no other
> choice but to assume that no patents apply, since ANY other action
> would paralyze *all* of our projects and make the ASF *more*
> vulnerable to infringement damages when a claim is made.
>
> Furthermore, *pending* patent applications are NOT patents.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
>> forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
>> a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
>> (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
>> been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
>> in all other cases.
> Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed with
> IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent license". Is
> it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so that all of us can review
> it?
I was talking about the press release that IBM sent out some time ago.
I have no idea what is included within it. It should be on IBM's
website somewhere.
> First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is WS-Security covered?
> Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
> agreement as it is already covered?
As far as we are concerned, IBM has no patents covering WS-Security.
Do you know of any? IBM haven't claimed any that I know about.
Same goes for Verisign, unless they have some additional claims
that are published elsewhere.
Why is this discussion even taking place? Why have we suddenly
lost all sense when it comes to dealing with patents, a topic and
concern that has been with us since day one of Apache? If there
is a public claim and information suggesting that it applies to our
software, then we deal with it. In all other cases we have no other
choice but to assume that no patents apply, since ANY other action
would paralyze *all* of our projects and make the ASF *more*
vulnerable to infringement damages when a claim is made.
Furthermore, *pending* patent applications are NOT patents.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IBM and Apache
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 08:39:48 AM:
> Roy,
> Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed with
> IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent license". Is
> it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so that all of us can review
> it?
>
> Jeff,
> First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is WS-Security covered?
> Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
> agreement as it is already covered?
Roy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect that he is referring to the
patent pledge that IBM made earlier this year -- a blanket pledge not to
assert a list of 500 or so patents against anyone creating or using open
source software. In addition, IBM regularly makes patent commitments for
specific standards similar to the one we made to WS-Security that would
apply to open source projects as well, but I don't think he was referring
to those.
Is WS-Security covered?? As I mentioned before, I don't think that IBM
has identified any specific IBM patent claims or patent applications that
are necessary for WS-Security. Since there are NO KNOWN PATENTS that IBM
has which are necessary, the answer to your question is "No", but its the
good version of "no", not the bad one. If it turns out that one or more
of those 500 are necessary for WS-Security, then the answer would be
"yes".
BTW, any takers on my suggestion that we get together in a small group and
develop a standard Apache way of working thru these issues? If we get
some guidelines in place, it might save a lot of time the next time this
comes up.
Jeff
>
> On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
> > forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
> > a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
> > (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
> > been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
> > in all other cases.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
IBM and Apache
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Roy,
Can you please point me to the legal documents Apache has signed with
IBM that states that we have a "blanket reciprocal patent license". Is
it in SVN? If not, can you please add it so that all of us can review
it?
Jeff,
First time am hearing this. This is accurate? Is WS-Security covered?
Does it mean Apache does not need to sign the WS-Security license
agreement as it is already covered?
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
> forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
> a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
> (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
> been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
> in all other cases.
thanks,
dims
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 05:01 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Discussions regarding the Web Security situation on legal-discuss have
> > revealed that IBM have provided a "patent license" to Apache for this
> > particular project. However, in the opinions of at least one lawyer,
> > any
> > derivative work beyond "minor bugfixes" will require an explicit patent
> > grant from IBM. I've joined that discussion half-way through, so can't
> > say much more until I have time to trawl through the whole thread.
> > However this just doesn't fit with my idea of open source.
>
> That's because the conversation consists of a bunch of nonsensical
> questions asked of a lawyer who is trying to figure out what on earth
> the person is asking. IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
> forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
> a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
> (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
> been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
> in all other cases.
>
> Every line of java code is covered by at least two patents and
> usually dozens more that may or may not be licensed. Asking if they
> exist is a completely irrelevant question. We only care about
> patents that are being actively enforced without an RF license.
>
> > Given this, it would be nice to know that the Beehive project doesn't
> > have any such situation (ie patent license explicitly granted to Apache
> > but *not* to derivative works) before promotion out of the sandbox
> > occurs.
>
> Derivative works is a definition from COPYRIGHT law. It is totally
> irrelevant *unless* the patent license is explicitly limited to
> unmodified works. The Apache CLA is a patent license from the
> contributor to all recipients of the ASF software -- whether or
> not the software changes is irrelevant because the license is
> given to the people, not to lines of code.
Just for general information, Jeffrey Thompson has given a nice summary
of the general situation with WSS4J (and in a very amusing manner).
Larry Rosen has followed up with an interesting set of questions phrased
in the appropriate legal terms.
Larry's questions cover roughly the same ground I was asking, so my
questions weren't completely "nonsensical". Clearly the issues about
patent grants and derivative works are not clear at the moment.
However from what I can see (and from the replies on this thread) this
particular discussion does not impact the Beehive project.
See the email of Sat, 16 Jul 2005 on legal-discuss with subject "IBM and
Apache":
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200507.mbox/%
3c20050715230454.GA43792@mail26b.sbc-webhosting.com%3e
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
This is news to me!!!! follow up question on legal-discuss@ Let's
please take this conversation there where it belongs.
-- dims
On 7/15/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> blanket reciprocal patent license
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 4:03 AM, Simon Kitching wrote:
> I am concerned about:
>
> * Situations like the Web Security project, where the OASIS
> specification being implemented by Apache explicitly states that there
> are patents claimed over the specification.
Then go look at the source of the specifications, if any.
> * Situations where the original provider of the code explicitly stating
> that there are patents on the work they are providing, and that they
> are
> providing licensing to Apache for the purposes of that project.
That is what the CLA covers, and is required of all contributors.
> Discussions regarding the Web Security situation on legal-discuss have
> revealed that IBM have provided a "patent license" to Apache for this
> particular project. However, in the opinions of at least one lawyer,
> any
> derivative work beyond "minor bugfixes" will require an explicit patent
> grant from IBM. I've joined that discussion half-way through, so can't
> say much more until I have time to trawl through the whole thread.
> However this just doesn't fit with my idea of open source.
That's because the conversation consists of a bunch of nonsensical
questions asked of a lawyer who is trying to figure out what on earth
the person is asking. IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the
forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes,
a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project
(I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have
been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies
in all other cases.
Every line of java code is covered by at least two patents and
usually dozens more that may or may not be licensed. Asking if they
exist is a completely irrelevant question. We only care about
patents that are being actively enforced without an RF license.
> Given this, it would be nice to know that the Beehive project doesn't
> have any such situation (ie patent license explicitly granted to Apache
> but *not* to derivative works) before promotion out of the sandbox
> occurs.
Derivative works is a definition from COPYRIGHT law. It is totally
irrelevant *unless* the patent license is explicitly limited to
unmodified works. The Apache CLA is a patent license from the
contributor to all recipients of the ASF software -- whether or
not the software changes is irrelevant because the license is
given to the people, not to lines of code.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 03:19 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
> > to this project?
>
> No, damnit. That is not how patents work! If we are notified of a
> patent owned by some entity that has not signed a CLA and contributed
> the code, then and ONLY THEN do we spend time analyzing whether the
> claims apply to some project of ours. Under no circumstances should
> an Apache project go out and search for patents that might apply
> based on their own opinion of what is claimed or what we implement.
That is not what I meant, as you would see if you read the full original
posting.
I am concerned about:
* Situations like the Web Security project, where the OASIS
specification being implemented by Apache explicitly states that there
are patents claimed over the specification.
* Situations where the original provider of the code explicitly stating
that there are patents on the work they are providing, and that they are
providing licensing to Apache for the purposes of that project.
Discussions regarding the Web Security situation on legal-discuss have
revealed that IBM have provided a "patent license" to Apache for this
particular project. However, in the opinions of at least one lawyer, any
derivative work beyond "minor bugfixes" will require an explicit patent
grant from IBM. I've joined that discussion half-way through, so can't
say much more until I have time to trawl through the whole thread.
However this just doesn't fit with my idea of open source.
Given this, it would be nice to know that the Beehive project doesn't
have any such situation (ie patent license explicitly granted to Apache
but *not* to derivative works) before promotion out of the sandbox
occurs.
I agree that *looking* for possible patents is unreasonable and actually
unwise.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:
> Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
> to this project?
No, damnit. That is not how patents work! If we are notified of a
patent owned by some entity that has not signed a CLA and contributed
the code, then and ONLY THEN do we spend time analyzing whether the
claims apply to some project of ours. Under no circumstances should
an Apache project go out and search for patents that might apply
based on their own opinion of what is claimed or what we implement.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
> On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Incubator PMC,
> >
> > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please
> see
> > the latest status at:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
to this project?
There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the
situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license for the
Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers of the
code must apply for a patent license separately).
The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address
patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not
apply to Beehive.
Sorry if this has already been discussed...
Thanks,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Incubator PMC,
>
> I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please
see
> the latest status at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html
+1
- - The Beehive committers have clearly demonstrated their willingness
and ability to develop and respond to their community.
- - They've built good relationships with committers on other projects,
including Axis, Geronimo, and Struts.
- - They are clealy dedicated to working within the open, meritocratic,
and consensus-based Apache development process.
- - Beyond community and code, they've also shown a sensitivity and
willingness to properly handle legal and PR aspects of Apache, which
is especially important for a TLP.
Overall, it is clear to me that the Beehive project is not only on a
successful path for their own community, but that they are interested
in making the rest of Apache successful as well.
Cliff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFC1tXdy6dGskFZ6tsRAk+ZAJ0X/NdJ1kJcrpHJu8L5dqpFz1ehYgCeJ6KI
i25KHZFsQfm7inZRtKynVkU=
=TtXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 7/18/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Noel,
> Cliff is driving the pmc selection/vp recommendation process.
>
> Cliff,
> Could you please respond?
Sure -- I'll follow up my earlier thread on the beehive ppmc list re:
board resolution and VP candidate.
Cliff
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 7/18/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Dims,
> >
> > It appears that there are sufficient votes and no objections. Please
> > prepare a request to be submitted to the Board meeting, which will be next
> > week.
> >
> > --- Noel
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 7/18/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Noel,
> Cliff is driving the pmc selection/vp recommendation process.
>
> Cliff,
> Could you please respond?
Sure -- I'll follow up my earlier thread on the beehive ppmc list re:
board resolution and VP candidate.
Cliff
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 7/18/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Dims,
> >
> > It appears that there are sufficient votes and no objections. Please
> > prepare a request to be submitted to the Board meeting, which will be next
> > week.
> >
> > --- Noel
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Noel,
Cliff is driving the pmc selection/vp recommendation process.
Cliff,
Could you please respond?
thanks,
dims
On 7/18/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> It appears that there are sufficient votes and no objections. Please
> prepare a request to be submitted to the Board meeting, which will be next
> week.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Noel,
Cliff is driving the pmc selection/vp recommendation process.
Cliff,
Could you please respond?
thanks,
dims
On 7/18/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> It appears that there are sufficient votes and no objections. Please
> prepare a request to be submitted to the Board meeting, which will be next
> week.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dims,
It appears that there are sufficient votes and no objections. Please
prepare a request to be submitted to the Board meeting, which will be next
week.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org