[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 04:24:25

Beman Dawes wrote:
> 
> At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  >
>  >Beman Dawes wrote:
>  >[...]
>  >> * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they
>  >> spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
>  >
>  >They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues "surrounding" implied
>  >patent license.
> 
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> If I understand correctly, "TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT" are basically legal
> code-words which covers a vast range of issues such as ownership, patents,
> trade secrets, etc.

That's a disclaimer basically saying "do your own patent search", etc. 
I'm talking about contributions from companies like IBM (my employer) 
that do have a whole bunch of patents to worry about... I mean, for 
example, enforcement right despite deliberate contribution that would
"infringe" some contributor's patent(s). Consider:

http://www.ohjelmisto.org/Legal_Aspects_of_OpenSource.PDF

<quote>
                The Patent Issue

- Patents implicitly licensed, to what extent?

- Even worse: what if patents are not licensed?

- GPL and exhaustion of certain exclusive
  distribution rights of the patent holder...

- General misperception that relevance only for
  the "bad software patents" like Amazon "one-
  click"-patent

- Problem of "leak out" of patent licenses
  through contributions

- Reason for "mushrooming" of new licenses like
  Mozilla License, IBM licenses, Nokia OpenSource 
  license (NOKOS)

</quote>

regards,
alexander.

--
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/eicta.pdf
Uhmm, ...
"New SCO Press Release
 by: martin_lvnv 
 
 For Immediate Release:
 SCO has determined through further research that even IBM mainframes 
 use propriety SCO methods and concepts without a license. Since almost 
 all computer software derives from unix, and mainframes use software, 
 we have determined that IBM mainframes use SCO IP. SCO hereby declares 
 them all "illegal" and demands they be unplugged.
 IBM mainframes use "usernames" and "passwords", concepts that were 
 proprietary to SCO since they were in used the oldest version of SYSV 
 unix. We were surprised to find IBM has been using these concepts 
 without license since before SCO was even incorporated. Misuse dates 
 back to some of IBMs earliest computers in the 1950s. 
 "We knew IBM had been transferring SCO technology from sys V Unix to 
 Linux" stated SCO CEO Daryl MacBride "but we didn't realize they were 
 transferring the technology to MVS, IBMs mainframe operating system 
 too". SCO will be asking for damages going all the way back to the 
 dawn of the computer era in the 1950s. It seems all of IBMs success 
 over the decades has been from stealing SCO IP, so we're going to sue 
 them for every dime they ever made. And then double it for punitive 
 damages.
 Asked to comment on the new allegations, an IBM spokesman responded 
 "Blow Me".
 In other news SCO announces the licensing of the "username" and 
 "password" concepts to Microsoft. A Microsoft spokesman admitted: 
 "We thought we stole it from IBM or Apple or acquired in from some 
 company we crushed. As soon as we determined it was SCO's 
 legitimate IP, we licensed these important concepts".
 Including Microsofts one time license fee of $84 million dollars, 
 SCO announced they turned a small profit this quarter. "
                                            -- SCOX board at yahoo