fenics team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday February 9 2011 18:23:51 Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday February 9 2011 15:37:38 Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
> >> > 
> >> > --
> >> > 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     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> >> >> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> > 
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> >> > Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> >> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp