And my response to Julian.
----- Forwarded message from Mark Shewmaker <mark@primefactor.com> -----
From: Mark Shewmaker <mark@primefactor.com>
To: spf-private@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [spf-private] Re: Open Patent certification mark
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.84, clamav-milter version 0.84e on primefactor.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:51:38PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
> I'm not fundamentally opposed. However, I do have several issues and
> questions:
The points of confusion are really due to my not having an updated draft
of the patent license.
There are two components, the certification mark license and the patent
license.
I'm working on a major rewrite of the draft of the Open Patent License,
drastically simplifying things. (But I can't get that part done in
time, not by any stretch. And as a side note, because I'm in the US
I'll need a patent attorney's help in making it non-draft. Or at least
more patent attorney assistence--I've had some assistence on it so far.)
So I went with having the certification mark reference the OPL in such a
way that it would only be useful after the first non-draft version:
"Option (A) in the "Applicable Goods and Services" section of this
license will not be available for use until the first final, non-draft
version of the Open Patent License becomes available."
> 1. <http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards.html> refers
> to "the 'Conditions of Use' provisions of the latest version of Patents
> in the Public Interest's 'Open Patent License'", however I cannot find
> any OPL "conditions of use" provisions on your site.
That is correct.
It will effectively be the same as the currently named section:
"Using Patents and PLIPs from the Open Patent Pools"
I suppose I could rename this to "Using Patents and PLIPs from the Open
Patent Pools" or change the wording.
Basically I had first tried to update the patent license "Open Patent
License" as well as the certification mark license in the URL above, but
the patent license just requires too many changes--and it isn't
necessary to update it for the cert mark requirements.
> 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), nor is it necessary to do that even for
submitting patents under other licenses. (For instance a patent grant
that said a patent was allowed to be used in any GPL work would work.)
(It could be used in the draft OPL to submit patents for Open Source
work.)
And again this is only related to working with the (still-very-draft)
patent license.
> 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.
It is not my intention at all to bind the openspf site/persons into the
OPL by simply using the mark.
> 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:"
> 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.
In fact, that a large part of the reason I used the complicated
set-based wording: "for which there exists at least one set of
licenses, grants, and agreements for which all of the following is
true:"
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark@primefactor.com
770-933-3250
----- End forwarded message -----
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----- Forwarded message from Mark Shewmaker <mark@primefactor.com> -----
From: Mark Shewmaker <mark@primefactor.com>
To: spf-private@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [spf-private] Re: Open Patent certification mark
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.84, clamav-milter version 0.84e on primefactor.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:51:38PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
> I'm not fundamentally opposed. However, I do have several issues and
> questions:
The points of confusion are really due to my not having an updated draft
of the patent license.
There are two components, the certification mark license and the patent
license.
I'm working on a major rewrite of the draft of the Open Patent License,
drastically simplifying things. (But I can't get that part done in
time, not by any stretch. And as a side note, because I'm in the US
I'll need a patent attorney's help in making it non-draft. Or at least
more patent attorney assistence--I've had some assistence on it so far.)
So I went with having the certification mark reference the OPL in such a
way that it would only be useful after the first non-draft version:
"Option (A) in the "Applicable Goods and Services" section of this
license will not be available for use until the first final, non-draft
version of the Open Patent License becomes available."
> 1. <http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards.html> refers
> to "the 'Conditions of Use' provisions of the latest version of Patents
> in the Public Interest's 'Open Patent License'", however I cannot find
> any OPL "conditions of use" provisions on your site.
That is correct.
It will effectively be the same as the currently named section:
"Using Patents and PLIPs from the Open Patent Pools"
I suppose I could rename this to "Using Patents and PLIPs from the Open
Patent Pools" or change the wording.
Basically I had first tried to update the patent license "Open Patent
License" as well as the certification mark license in the URL above, but
the patent license just requires too many changes--and it isn't
necessary to update it for the cert mark requirements.
> 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), nor is it necessary to do that even for
submitting patents under other licenses. (For instance a patent grant
that said a patent was allowed to be used in any GPL work would work.)
(It could be used in the draft OPL to submit patents for Open Source
work.)
And again this is only related to working with the (still-very-draft)
patent license.
> 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.
It is not my intention at all to bind the openspf site/persons into the
OPL by simply using the mark.
> 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:"
> 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.
In fact, that a large part of the reason I used the complicated
set-based wording: "for which there exists at least one set of
licenses, grants, and agreements for which all of the following is
true:"
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark@primefactor.com
770-933-3250
----- End forwarded message -----
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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