-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:51:38PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
2. Do I understand it correctly that there are two ways at
participating in your Open Patents initiative: (a) "joining" at one
of several "options", thus binding oneself to submitting _all_
_current_and_future_ patents and PLIPs to the pool corresponding
to the option chosen, or (b) merely submitting _specific_ patents
and PLIPs to one or more of the pools?
On that version of the "Open Patent License" patent license itself, if
one is for submitting patents and plips, for use in closed-souce code,
yes.
However it's not necessary to do that to use patents from the pools (for
qualified Open Source use), [...]
I see.
3. Assuming my understanding of (2) is correct, then do I understand
it correctly that using the certification mark of some of the
software provided by the openspf.org website would imply (2b), but
not (2a)?
No. The certification mark is on goods and services according to the
conditions of the "Certification Mark Standards document".
One of the ways those conditions would be met is in goods/services
licensed under the mark's "Acceptible/(B)" section, which doesn't
require participation in even the draft OPL.
Another way would be if the OPL "use" terms applied. That could imply
both your (2a) and (2b), but it could also imply conditions which should
effectively match the "Acceptible/(B)" section.
I see.
It is not my intention at all to bind the openspf site/persons into the
OPL by simply using the mark.
I hadn't assumed it was. I just want to be near completely certain about
the implications, intended or not. This "Open Patent" certification mark
obviously isn't very well tested yet.
4. Assuming my understanding of (3) is correct as well, then how
would this work given that probably none of the software provided
by the openspf.org website is actually covered by patents or PLIPs?
By the use of the "applicable/(b)" section:
"Software for which there exists at least one set of
licenses, grants, and agreements for which all of the following is
true:"
I see.
5. Assuming it would work even without any actual patents, would this
preclude the software covered by the Open Patent certification
mark to be multi-licensed (in addition to the current exclusive
BSD/GPL licenses) under other, non-open-source, or non-OPL-
compatible licenses in the future?
No it wouldn't.
Good.
6. Would applying the Open Patent certification mark to some of the
software automatically extend to clause C and D of the
certification mark standards, i.e. to "Any services related to the
execution of software described in (B) above", or to "Any services,
including consulting services and retail services, related to the
construction, design, modification, production, marketing, or
delivery of goods and services described in (A) or (B) above",
provided by users of the software?
That's the intent.
So our use of the "Open Patent" certification mark would mean a change
(i.e. a restriction) in how people are allowed to use the marked pieces of
software, right?
Concretely, it would prevent people from combining a GPL-licensed software
(e.g. postfix-policyd-spf-perl) with another GPL-licensed software that
contains non-OPL-free (but GPL-compatible) patents/PLIPs, right?
7. I'm generally worried about any perpetuality implied by the use of
the OPL or the Open Patent certification mark. IOW, can we undo
any decisions related to this later?
The OPL eventually--no. But it's not really available for anyone to
accept at the moment anyway.
The certification mark--yes.
OK, that's what I thought. So we could remove the mark later if we find it
to be a problem. (I'm not expecting it to, but you never know. "Open
Patent" not well tested yet, yadda yadda.)
8. I'm reluctant to start using the "TM" mark on the openspf.org
website. If we use it for one trade mark, we may have to use it for
_all_ the trade marks used on the website, which I'd very much like to
avoid.
That's fine. I worded that part as a request only.
Good.
Thanks for explaining it all to me.
Assuming the two assumptions of mine above are correct, I have no
objections against marking postfix-policyd-spf-{perl,python} and
the "Tools" page as "Open Patent" as you requested (minus the "TM"s
perhaps).
What do others think?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGMnhtwL7PKlBZWjsRAo4DAJ9PLGf4OHsNevAxZlj+ed9JKd1ImQCfYs2S
DR/rKGRPrb4n0yic5qfwa/c=
=UVvh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com