[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [aspectj-users] AOP Patent
|
> I'm curious why Xerox has patented AOP. What are the legal
consequences
> of this fact? Is it possible that people or companies that use
AOP have
> to pay to get a license in future?
Xerox has patented what it's patented, but I wouldn't say it's
patented AOP (nor would I join a thread on "what is AOP and is
it patented?"!).
IMHO, anything significant, new, and useful is worth patenting,
particularly if you are an institution that sells the stuff.
You can always give it away if that's the right thing to do.
wrt AspectJ, Xerox PARC seems to have made every effort to
ensure that people using AspectJ won't have to pay for it.
There's a reply on point from Jim when he was still at PARC at
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/aspectj-users/msg00526.html
(copied below for convenience.)
I'm sure there will be forms of AOP that people will have to
pay to use, as patented or licensed by any number of folks,
including PARC, Sun, Microsoft, IBM, and all the others who
might have software patents on point. But by hypothesis,
people will pay for them because the product is worth more
to them than the money.
However, most agree that the right thing to do for AOP is to
make it freely available; once everyone can use it, everyone
will be able to benefit, commercially and otherwise.
my $.02 -
Wes
------
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."
------
Steffen Euch wrote:
Hi!
I'm curious why Xerox has patented AOP. What are the legal consequences
of this fact? Is it possible that people or companies that use AOP have
to pay to get a license in future?
Here is the patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/%20srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,467,086.WKU.&OS=PN/6,467,086&RS=PN/%206,467,086
Thanks for your help!
Steffen
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
