From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 11:40:42
At 05:24 AM 6/26/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>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
>> >> spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
>> >They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues "surrounding"
>> >patent license.
>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
>> If I understand correctly, "TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT" are basically
>> code-words which covers a vast range of issues such as ownership,
>> trade secrets, etc.
>That's a disclaimer basically saying "do your own patent search", etc.
Yes, among other things.
>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).
You really need to talk to IBM's lawyers to get their views. I know they
have looked at the current Boost licenses, because they were kind enough to
report some ambiguous wording, but I have no idea what else they may be
There are certainly legal issues with regards to contributions, but those
issues are being dealt with separately. They appear to be separate from
issues regarding the license.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk