Part of http://faif.us/cast/2014/aug/05/0x4B/ with Fontana and VanL concerned a desire for patent grant covering more than just contributor's contributions/in combination with work, or whole work at time of contributor's contributions (as I [mis]understand them, Apache2 and EPL do former, MPL2 and GPL3 latter).
This reminded me to look at copyleft-next again. I assume it is intended to do latter, that is
"My Code" means the particular work of authorship I license to You under this License.
refers to my contributor version, not the code contributed by me?
Near the end of the podcast Bradley said (roughly) that if free software license patent grants aren't covering enough, the those licenses should be fixed. As opposed to using CLAs which offer more coverage -- in theory, though it was noted they usually don't -- any examples that do?
I was kind of hoping that I'd discover recent copyleft-next commits adding patent coverage beyond single work, but alas. Any in the pipeline? What are the possible scopes of coverage beyond single work? I'd guess a list of works, but this would be kind of messy, having to be specified elsewhere, or all free software. Latter would be unattractive to many companies, but they already have options.
Mike
Le 06/08/2014 22:23, Mike Linksvayer a écrit :
Part of http://faif.us/cast/2014/aug/05/0x4B/ with Fontana and VanL concerned a desire for patent grant covering more than just contributor's contributions/in combination with work, or whole work at time of contributor's contributions (as I [mis]understand them, Apache2 and EPL do former, MPL2 and GPL3 latter).
Do you know if there's a written transcript or summary somewhere?
Regards
Antoine.
On 08/06/2014 07:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 06/08/2014 22:23, Mike Linksvayer a écrit :
Part of http://faif.us/cast/2014/aug/05/0x4B/ with Fontana and VanL concerned a desire for patent grant covering more than just contributor's contributions/in combination with work, or whole work at time of contributor's contributions (as I [mis]understand them, Apache2 and EPL do former, MPL2 and GPL3 latter).
Do you know if there's a written transcript or summary somewhere?
None that I know of for any FaiF episode. I suppose if anyone made one the hosts would link to it on the show page.
Mike
On 07/08/14 03:23, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
Part of http://faif.us/cast/2014/aug/05/0x4B/ with Fontana and VanL concerned a desire for patent grant covering more than just contributor's contributions/in combination with work, or whole work at time of contributor's contributions (as I [mis]understand them, Apache2 and EPL do former, MPL2 and GPL3 latter).
MPL does the former - see section 2.3 c) in MPL 2 and 2.2 b) in MPL 1.1.
I was kind of hoping that I'd discover recent copyleft-next commits adding patent coverage beyond single work, but alas. Any in the pipeline? What are the possible scopes of coverage beyond single work?
Coverage beyond a single work is presumably a patent pool?
Gerv
On 08/07/2014 01:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 07/08/14 03:23, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
Part of http://faif.us/cast/2014/aug/05/0x4B/ with Fontana and VanL concerned a desire for patent grant covering more than just contributor's contributions/in combination with work, or whole work at time of contributor's contributions (as I [mis]understand them, Apache2 and EPL do former, MPL2 and GPL3 latter).
MPL does the former - see section 2.3 c) in MPL 2 and 2.2 b) in MPL 1.1.
Thanks! I glazed over 2.3 c). By the way, I notice on http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPL_and_patents some confusion similar to mine. I added to discussion there noting your correction.
I was kind of hoping that I'd discover recent copyleft-next commits adding patent coverage beyond single work, but alas. Any in the pipeline? What are the possible scopes of coverage beyond single work?
Coverage beyond a single work is presumably a patent pool?
That's what exists now (OIN was briefly mentioned in the podcast) in addition to standards contribution requirements (not mentioned).
I could imagine a project rejecting contributions from non-members of relevant patent pool (which for many projects might mean creating one) instead of or as part of a CLA, but assume there's some benefit to having free software license be the sole terms for all contributors and users, thus encouraging speculation about how free software licenses might be improved, which this forum seems to tolerate. :)
Mike
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org