Including a Microsoft Patent license in a CPAN module
John McNamara
Spreadsheet::WriteExcelXML that uses the Spreadsheet::WriteExcel
interface to write an Excel file in the SpreadsheetML XML dialect.
The SpreadsheetML schema is covered by the "Office 2003 XML Reference
Schema Patent License" which states "Microsoft may have patents and/or
patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to
make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files
that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas".
See http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp
In order to comply with this I would have to include the following
notice in the documentation and source code of the module.
"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft
Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is
licensing such intellectual property may be found at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp".
As far as I can see this notice would only apply to the Excel XML
writing code and the module could still be distributed under the
Poetic license.
Does anyone see any specific problems with this.
John.
--
perl -MCPAN -e 'install jmcnamara & _ x ord $ ;' | tail -1
Darin McBride
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to talk to a lawyer and get an
official legal position on this - even if there are lawyers reading
this newsgroup, you're only getting what you pay for, and I don't mean
that figuratively.
John McNamara
wrote:
>As far as I can see this notice would only apply to the Excel XML
>writing code and the module could still be distributed under the
>Poetic license.
s/Poetic/Artistic/;
John.
--
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: The SpreadsheetML schema is covered by the "Office 2003 XML Reference
: Schema Patent License" which states "Microsoft may have patents and/or
: patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to
: make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files
: that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas".
Love that "may have".
(caveat: I'm no lawyer) but I think that if they have a patent they _have_
to tell you what the patent is (therfore they don't have a patent or you
would know), and if they have an accepted application then they _have_ to
tell you "patent pending" (which, by the way, they are not permitted to
claim unless it's true.)
As for that word "applications", for patents, again I think that that
means nothing, since it is not the "application" that gives anybody
patent protection, but the _acceptance_ of the application so as to start
the formal process that may result in the patent. (Otherwise, anybody
could protect anything simply by sending in an application, which isn't
how it works.)
The US patent office has a web site that explains all the gory details,
I'm sure that google will lead you to it. Whether you wish to trust
yourself to understand all the ramifications is another matter.
$0.01