Re: [aspectj-users] AOP patent question

[Wes Isberg <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally think the CPL and other factors *do* matter (but does what 
I think matter? *smile*).  In any case, your fear would also apply to 
IBM or any other company who has contributed code covered by their 
patents, so if you think that's a problem, it's one not with Xerox and 
AspectJ, but with the Eclipse project and open source licenses 
generally.  If you know of broader guarantees that a reasonable company 
would commit to when contributing to open-source, or better incentives 
for a company not to defect, I'd like to hear about them.*

Wes

* - preferably offline, until there's a real chance that we'd get Xerox 
to sign up for them wrt AspectJ.

Donal Lafferty wrote:
> Does it really matter what the CPL says?  If Xerox decides that it's
> going to remove the AOP patent from the CPL, and sue the next person who
> goes to 'create derivative works' by recompiling a bug fix, who's going
> to pony up the case (US$500,000+) required to fight a patent law case?
>
>
> DL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wes Isberg
> Sent: 04 June 2003 02:25
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] AOP patent question
>
> fyi, Jim Hugunin's 3/20/2003 reply to "Patent on AOP/AspectJ?" was this:
>
> ------
> PARC's goal in releasing AspectJ in Open Source form on eclipse.org is 
> to ensure that the community can continue to use and develop AspectJ. 
> We believe that the Common Public License (CPL) used by eclipse is an 
> effective way to do this.  By contributing the AspectJ source code under
>
> the CPL, PARC also licenses any relevant patents under the terms of the
> CPL.
>
> If you want a non-legalese description of what the terms of the CPL are,
>
> I'd recommend reading the eclipse legal FAQ 
> (http://eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html).  Here's what that FAQ says 
> about patents, "Under the CPL, each Contributor grants rights to create 
> derivative works and for worldwide, royalty-free software redistribution
>
> in accordance with the CPL terms, including a royalty-free license to 
> use Contributor's patents as embodied in its contributions."
>
> ------
>
> Wes
>
> Lesiecki Nicholas wrote:
>
>
> > I asked this same question a while ago. Search the mailing list for
>
> the
>
> > details, but the gist was: "don't worry about it."
> >
> > (IANAL),
> > Nick
> > --- Jim Z <otugbox@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is a patent on AOP, see 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=
> /netahtml/search-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=aspect-oriente
> d&OS=aspect-oriented&RS=aspect-oriented
>
> > > Does anyone have any guidelines as to how one can reasonably use
>
> AspectJ
>
> > > or 
> > > AOP?
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aspectj-users mailing list
> > > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users