fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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<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?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>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
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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
>
>