Interesting! I will check this out,
Johan On Friday February 18 2011 08:00:16 David Ham wrote: > There might be an escape from this. If UCSD's problem is with the patent > clause in (L)GPL, you could instead ask if you might be allowed to > provide code under the BSD licence. The BSD license has no patent clause > so hopefully they will find it acceptable. It was also originally > written by the University of California so presumably they're OK with it. > > The point is that BSD is (L)GPL compatible so it is legally possible to > incorporate BSD code in LGPL code and distribute the resulting code as > LGPL. I think this fixes the problem. > > Regards, > > David > > On 15/02/11 01:13, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Wednesday February 9 2011 19:37:10 Ridgway Scott wrote: > >> I suspect this will be a general problem at all U.S. Universities. > > > > Yeah, I pretty much have stalled here. Their final answer was: > > What the institution is being asked to sign is consent that the > > institution's IP be licensed under the LGPL V3. We do not consent to > > that, for the reasons I've been giving you. I don't know if I can > > make it any less complicated than that. > > > > They did not answer my "what with the already contributed code" question > > either. But then I am not sure I want to know the answer. Maybe it is > > best to give up to get the consent from UCSD and let silence test the > > system? > > > > Johan > > > >> Ridg > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Johan Hake wrote: > >>> On Wednesday February 9 2011 18:23:51 Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Hake<[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday February 9 2011 15:37:38 Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Anders Logg<[email protected]> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:23:44AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday February 9 2011 10:14:51 Johan Hake wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday February 9 2011 10:10:04 Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 09:52:21AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> UCSD is not willing to sign the consent statement about GPL > >>>>>>>>>>> 3... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> From the answer I got: > >>>>>>>>>>> LGPL incorporates GPL 3, and that is the problem. Earlier > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> versions of the GPL did not deal in patent rights, while > >>>>>>>>>>> Version 3 does. It would commit a license to the entire UC > >>>>>>>>>>> patent estate, whether the inventors were an informed > >>>>>>>>>>> participant or not. I would need to consult further with UC > >>>>>>>>>>> General Counsel for a detailed answer, but the spirit is that > >>>>>>>>>>> the license overreaches in its commitments to patent rights > >>>>>>>>>>> beyond what the university is willing to do. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That seems strange. So UCSD will want to retain the right to > >>>>>>>>>> sue > >>>>>>>>>> users of DOLFIN if you should happen to add code to DOLFIN that > >>>>>>>>>> infringes on some patent held by UCSD? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have no clue what it means. But I will ask. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here is a more elaborated explaination: > >>>>>>>> The language is pretty clear in section 11 of the GPL V3 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> license - > >>>>>>>> it commits all the rights of the Licensor (the Regents of the > >>>>>>>> University of California) to a license. Our normal licensing > >>>>>>>> practice is to license one technology at a time, and we do not > >>>>>>>> license the other patents along with it. Our guiding principles > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> licensing are at this link > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <http://invent.ucsd.edu/faculty/policies/guiding-principles.shtm > >>>>>>>> l > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Johan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is it this paragraph? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty- > >>>>>>> free > >>>>>>> patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to > >>>>>>> make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, > >>>>>>> modify and > >>>>>>> propagate the contents of its contributor version." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Assuming that something in your contract makes UCSD the > >>>>>>> "contributor" > >>>>>>> and not you personally, this means that UCSD grants any patent > >>>>>>> licenses needed to run the code that you put into FEniCS. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The other option is to reserve the right to sue the users of > >>>>>>> FEniCS > >>>>>>> for any UCSD patents that your code in FEnICS is infringing upon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I understand, it doesn't say anything about other > >>>>>>> patents > >>>>>>> that UCSD have that are unrelated to the actual code in FEniCS. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If they refuse to sign the consent form, will they also refuse > >>>>>>> to let > >>>>>>> you continue to contribute code to FEniCS? And sue us all for > >>>>>>> the code > >>>>>>> you have contributed so far? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Anders > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In the US, code and patentable "Intellectual Property" is usually > >>>>>> considered property of the employer. So the contributor has no > >>>>>> right > >>>>>> to give away the rights of a company's patents. If they sign this > >>>>>> form and Johan uploads something covered under another patent > >>>>>> then it > >>>>>> affects their rights to patent royalties. So in effect they are > >>>>>> saying they reserve the right to sue FEniCS (but probably Simula) > >>>>>> if > >>>>>> you encroach on their patents. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In practice, most open source code from US universities is > >>>>>> distributed > >>>>>> without regard to the law and for the most part everyone ignores > >>>>>> it. > >>>>>> For example, TTI-C should be the copyright holder on much of the > >>>>>> code > >>>>>> that you wrote in Chicago. > >>>>> > >>>>> Does your university have the same policies? I guess I should just > >>>>> kept > >>>>> quite then... > >>>> > >>>> I'm still waiting for word back from my department, but my > >>>> contributions are so small that I don't think there could be any > >>>> claims from my employer. > >>> > >>> Would it be a point to collect what I have done during the stay here > >>> at UCSD, > >>> and hopefully show that there wont be anything to claim? Most of my > >>> work in > >>> FEniCS I did when I was at Simula. > >>> > >>> Johan > >>> > >>>> -- Andy > >>>> > >>>>> Johan > >>>>> > >>>>>> -- Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Are there any others that have got a similare answer? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No problems so far. Here's what we have so far: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/authors/ > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/institutions/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I guess the Cambridge statement is not correct? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Johan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>>>>>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>>>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>>>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>> Post to : [email protected] > >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > > Post to : [email protected] > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
