Subject: Re: WebM license resolution.
From: Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 17:54:01 +0200
Tue, 8 Jun 2010 17:54:01 +0200
\Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona@gmail.com] wrote:

>
> >> Chris, my personal kudos to you for not inventing a new license.
>  Question:
> >> could the additional IP grant be extended to "Google and WebM
> contributors"
> >> rather than Google alone?
> >
> > No. As others might give us patches, we could be interpreted as providing
> > coverage for their patents,too, which we can't do.
> >
> >
> >> If you will have an Android-style contributor agreement for WebM, all
> contributors
> >> would be granting you sufficient patent rights to extend the IP grant.
> >
> > Sort of, we're reviewing the CLA.
>
> So, today a WebM user gets an explicit patent license from Google for
> Google's code, but nothing
> beyond whatever might be implicit in bare BSD for any code accepted into
> WebM owned by 3rd
> parties.
>

Basically as I understand it, yes, which is why we're going to be super
careful about submissions from external parties.

>
> Your CLA could require contributors to make a Google-like patent statement
> with respect
> to their own code submissions, but of course, you've already thought of
> that....
>

Sure? Or allow us to patent technology that might be in submissions in their
name or ours, there are a lot of options worth considering at the CLA level.




>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com


\Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona@gmail.com] wrote:

>> Chris, my personal kudos to you for not inventing a new license.  Question:
>> could the additional IP grant be extended to "Google and WebM contributors"
>> rather than Google alone?
>
> No. As others might give us patches, we could be interpreted as providing
> coverage for their patents,too, which we can't do.
>
>
>> If you will have an Android-style contributor agreement for WebM, all contributors
>> would be granting you sufficient patent rights to extend the IP grant.
>
> Sort of, we're reviewing the CLA.

So, today a WebM user gets an explicit patent license from Google for Google's code, but nothing
beyond whatever might be implicit in bare BSD for any code accepted into WebM owned by 3rd
parties.

Basically as I understand it, yes, which is why we're going to be super careful about submissions from external parties.

Your CLA could require contributors to make a Google-like patent statement with respect
to their own code submissions, but of course, you've already thought of that....

Sure? Or allow us to patent technology that might be in submissions in their name or ours, there are a lot of options worth considering at the CLA level.

 

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center




--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com