Subject: RE: For Approval: CeCILL - (now patent laundering)
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:24:32 -0700

 Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:24:32 -0700
 
Stephane Dalmas wrote: 

> However for "real" software patents (patents that are entirely about 
> software and not about a mixture of soft + hard) it is not clear at
all 
> to me how patent grants in licenses such as EPL, CDDL, and Apache 2.0 
> are in fact significantly more protective (for the patent owner) than 
> CeCILL. 

Well, to pick one, here is the language from the Initial Developer's
patent grant in CDDL:

	No patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from
the 
	Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the
modification 
	of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the
Original Software 
	with other software or devices.

So, for example, FT could open-source an audio codec under CDDL and have
a high degree of confidence that they have granted a license
*only* for patents which read on the Original Software and
*only* for CDDL-licensed applications.  Compare and contrast with
the blanket promise not to assert patents Licensor gives Licensee
in your current draft of CeCILL.

I'm not suggesting that the patent non-assertion clause of CeCILL
violates the OSD.  I am suggesting that when big company lawyers
read CeCILL in its current form, they will blacklist it.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center