FW: OASIS and patents: UDDI

[Steve Viens <st...@viens.net>]

FYI (I apologize for the cross-posting)

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:brian@collab.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:11 PM
To: Steve Viens
Cc: pmc@ws.apache.org; board@apache.org
Subject: Re: OASIS and patents: UDDI

Hi Steve, thanks for the note.

It does appear that, technically, such RF licenses would need to be
sought 
in order to be legally clean, but with publication of such a commitment
on 
the OASIS site, even if we were "caught" without such royalty-free 
licenses in our hands, the patent holders would have a tough time
claiming 
damages in any sort of legal action.

The more important issue, though, is that we are essentially committing 
our *downstream* users to obtaining licenses to the patents that our
code 
implements.  What it means is that instead of saying, "Here's some fine 
fresh Apache software under the Apache license, enjoy!" we need to say, 
"Here's some fine fresh Apache software under the Apache license, and by

the way to use it legally you need to go to X, Y, and Z and obtain
patent 
licenses."  We're also thus hoping that the patent grants made by these 
companies are non-revocable; that they don't one day remove the ability
to 
obtain RF licenses from them.

I'm also concerned about the statement further down that page, the 
"Notices and Disclaimers for UDDI Specifications for the UDDI Version 2 
and 3 Specifications", where it says:

   If the Licensors own any patents or patent applications that may be
   required for implementing and using the specifications contained in
the
   Document in products that comply with the specifications, upon
written
   request, a non-exclusive license under such patents shall be granted
on
   reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

RAND might not mean "free for Apache-licensed works".

Sigh, I hate the complexity of all this.  It's one reason why we've 
resisted allowing riders and other complexity on licensing of Apache 
works.  What is sometimes interpreted as dogma is really just a plea for

sanity!  :)

I think the board and membership need to discuss if Apache projects that

implement specifications that require getting a license from third-party

patent holders is acceptable or not.  For now, carry on.

 	Brian


On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Steve Viens wrote:
> The UDDI IPR can be found at the URL below. It appears as though we 
> *may
> eventually* need to obtain royalty free patent licenses from Oracle,
IBM
> and Sun.
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/ipr.php
>
> Excerpts from the IPR that make me believe this are below (I've 
> included these in the note for convenience. Please read the full IPR 
> so the following is read 	in the correct context):
>
> Oracle believes the following published patent application contains 
> one or more claims ... Oracle will, upon written request, provide a 
> nonexclusive, royalty free patent license ... for implementing 
> versions 1, 2, and 3 of the UDDI specification.
>
> IBM believes the following published patent application contains one 
> or more claims ... IBM will, upon written request, provide a 
> nonexclusive, royalty free patent license ... for implementing the 
> UDDI Versions 1, 2, and 3 specification.
>
> Sun Microsystems' current "intentions" with respect to several pending

> patent applications that were identified more than two years ago as 
> possibly relevant to UDDI v.1 ... if and when it is determined that 
> Sun does own claims which would necessarily be infringed by any such 
> implementation ... then any party will be able to obtain from Sun a 
> royalty-free license covering its Necessary Claims for the creation, 
> use and distribution of compliant implementations of the UDDI v. 2 
> Specification as finally approved by OASIS.
>
> Steve