RE: OWF CLA

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Lawrence Rosen

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 3:00:52 PM12/18/09
to open-we...@googlegroups.com

Thanks, David, for the welcome back. I'm actually ready to get going! I spent two days cleaning my office so I now have a desk to work at. :-)

 

I've followed some of the conversations about the CLA and want to reread them. I want to be thoughtful in my public answer and not create barriers to compromise. If asked to vote now, though, I'd suggest we adopt CLA1 that you describe, and disallow CLA2 for the open web. [I refer to your document at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal/browse_thread/thread/d5eec8e5a1ae2b0b.]

 

As I see the divide, there are companies, primarily among the proprietary vendors, that are somewhat stingy in their donations of patents for industry standards. They are fine with giving patent claims and copyrights away as long as they retain a veto over the future evolution of the standard. There are others, primarily in the FOSS communities, who believe that limitations on derivative works are incompatible with their licenses and philosophies.

 

I don't know how to reconcile this yet. But I will suggest that—with respect to open web standards, whatever those are defined to be—I prefer freedom to lock-in. I see no reason to allow patent owners to structure their contributions so that patent claims they are willing to give now are not available for *evolving* open web standards.

 

/Larry

 

 

 

From: David Rudin (LCA) [mailto:davi...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:57 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Subject: OWF

 

Larry,

 

Welcome back (I think).  Just wanted to check in to see if you’ve had a chance to look the proposal for the CLAs here - http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal/browse_thread/thread/d5eec8e5a1ae2b0b.

 

Thanks,

 

David

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages