Subject: Re: For Approval: Educational Community License 1.0
From: "Christopher D. Coppola" <chris.coppola@rsmart.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:54:54 -0700
Mon, 7 May 2007 11:54:54 -0700
I understand that interpretation exists, but I also understand that  
not everyone agrees with it. Relying on the "use" language leaves it  
up to interpretation that seems to have generated equally reasonable  
opinions on either side of the argument which makes it pretty risky  
to depend on. It may be that a court would agree, it may be that a  
court would disagree. It may be that it depends on the circumstances  
around the contribution. This situation seems risky to me, and it  
seems that being explicit has a lot of value. While it may not be as  
"potentially" broad, it is clearly specified. I know what I can  
reasonably count on.

/Chris.



On May 7, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Christopher D.Coppola wrote:
> > Without approval we'd necessarily need to stay
> > with ECL 1.0 which negates the benefits of our diligent contribution
> > agreement practices and does nothing for patent grants.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, the word "use" in ECL 1.0 arguably  
> constitutes a
> broad patent grant.  So from this perspective ECL 2.0 does grant less.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>



I understand that interpretation exists, but I also understand that not everyone agrees with it. Relying on the "use" language leaves it up to interpretation that seems to have generated equally reasonable opinions on either side of the argument which makes it pretty risky to depend on. It may be that a court would agree, it may be that a court would disagree. It may be that it depends on the circumstances around the contribution. This situation seems risky to me, and it seems that being explicit has a lot of value. While it may not be as "potentially" broad, it is clearly specified. I know what I can reasonably count on.
 
/Chris.



On May 7, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

Christopher D.Coppola wrote:
> Without approval we'd necessarily need to stay
> with ECL 1.0 which negates the benefits of our diligent contribution
> agreement practices and does nothing for patent grants.

As I mentioned earlier, the word "use" in ECL 1.0 arguably constitutes a
broad patent grant.  So from this perspective ECL 2.0 does grant less.

Matt Flaschen