Nice. -- Anders
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:00:16PM +0000, 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.shtml > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>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? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>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
