OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Biagio Lucini]

The question arose in 

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00394.html

and follow-up messages.

I have made an enquiry to the OpenMP ARB, appended is the answer I received. 
My understanding of the meaning of "public domain" is that we are free to put 
the code under GPL+exceptions.

Biagio


----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: RE: [Feedback] Licensing (or copyright) question
Date: Tuesday 23 November 2004 05.17
From: "Shah, Sanjiv" <sanjiv.shah@intel.com>
To: "Biagio Lucini" <lucini@phys.ethz.ch>, <feedback@openmp.org>

Hello,

Any material from the OpenMP ARB needs to be released under OpenMP
copyright, including the example code.  With the copyright, you can
assume the code is public domain.

Thank you for your interest.

For the OpenMP ARB,
Sanjiv Shah

--
Sanjiv Shah, 217/403-4244, Mobile 217/417-6723, Fax 217/403-4399
Intel Americas, Inc., 1906 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL 61820


-----Original Message-----
From: Feedback-bounces@openmp.org [mailto:Feedback-bounces@openmp.org]
On Behalf Of Biagio Lucini
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:42 AM
To: feedback@openmp.org
Subject: [Feedback] Licensing (or copyright) question

We are starting a project to implement OpenMP for GCC. At the moment, we
are
written the stubs, which mostly coincides with what is written in the
specification document. Now, GCC for the libraries like to put a GPL +
exceptions license. Are we allowed to do that? And under which copyright
is
the code of the specs being released? Does the copyright notice that
applies
to the document applies also to the example code or can we assume that
the
code is public domain?

Many thanks for your time,
Biagio Lucini (on the behalf of the developers of the gomp project)


Feedback mailing list
Feedback@openmp.org
http://openmp.org/mailman/listinfo/feedback_openmp.org

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
=========================================================

Biagio Lucini				      
Institut Fuer Theoretische Physik
ETH Hoenggerberg      
CH-8093 Zuerich - Switzerland           
Tel. +41 (0)1 6332562  
 
=========================================================

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Mike Stump]

On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Biagio Lucini wrote:
> I have made an enquiry to the OpenMP ARB, appended is the answer I 
> received.
> My understanding of the meaning of "public domain" is that we are free 
> to put the code under GPL+exceptions.

My take, I think their email reply is evidence that they have no clue 
what-so-ever.  I'd suggest that you ask them a yes or no question, and 
that you accept no another answer other than yes or no.  Now, as to the 
question, can I do X, where X is all the code that you think might 
infringe.  Also, bear in mind, what the person says has no legal 
weight, if they person you are talking to has no legal standing.

If you don't get satisfaction from them, then, I'd bump you to the 
FSF's lawyer on how to handle this.  Standard clean room techniques 
certainly work.

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Biagio Lucini wrote:
>> I have made an enquiry to the OpenMP ARB, appended is the answer I 
>> received.
>> My understanding of the meaning of "public domain" is that we are free to 
>> put the code under GPL+exceptions.
>
> My take, I think their email reply is evidence that they have no clue 
> what-so-ever.  I'd suggest that you ask them a yes or no question, and that 
> you accept no another answer other than yes or no.  Now, as to the question, 
> can I do X, where X is all the code that you think might infringe.  Also, 
> bear in mind, what the person says has no legal weight, if they person you 
> are talking to has no legal standing.

It's never a good idea to make assumptions about what principles the law 
follows :).

In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
Take a gander at the law of agency, in particular the principle of 
"apparent authority" (and also the principles of various forms 
of estoppel). Of course, you'd end up in court in this case, which you'd 
want to avoid, but you don't get to hold yourself out and give legal 
answers on behalf of your employer without any consequences :).

Which brings us to the part where i say this isn't legal advice, doesn't 
represent IBM, blah, blah, blah, blah :)


--Dan

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
> > Also, 
> > bear in mind, what the person says has no legal weight, if they person you 
> > are talking to has no legal standing.
> 
> It's never a good idea to make assumptions about what principles the law 
> follows :).

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:47:43PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
> Take a gander at the law of agency, in particular the principle of 
> "apparent authority" (and also the principles of various forms 
> of estoppel). Of course, you'd end up in court in this case, which you'd 
> want to avoid, but you don't get to hold yourself out and give legal 
> answers on behalf of your employer without any consequences :).

"estoppel", as I understand it, means that the court won't find you guilty
if you rely on a promise that you had good reason to think was a valid
promise (for example, because someone claiming to speak for a company made
it to you).  I have no idea, though, what "good reason" means in this
case.  Red Hat recently put out a piece explaining that the estoppel
principle would keep a future evil Red Hat management from suing free
software developers for infringing on Red Hat's patents, because the
developers are relying on an official promise:

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/001nov04/features/patents/
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

Still, estoppel is an Anglo/American concept, and might not be good
elsewhere.

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Mike Stump]

On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
> In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.

I wasn't giving general advice of what we might be able to get away 
with or what the law might allow for, but rather, a very conservative 
view that hopefully doesn't fail to be conservative to keep us and them 
happy.

In my opinion, if one wants to do fun things with the law, one needs to 
be the FSF lawyer; we can only do what is trivially obvious.  To me 
that would be, reimplementation of any part that might be protected by 
copyright, or assignment; beyond that, and I think we need to involve 
the SC or rms or the FSF lawyer.

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
>> In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
>
> I wasn't giving general advice of what we might be able to get away with or 
> what the law might allow for, but rather, a very conservative view that 
> hopefully doesn't fail to be conservative to keep us and them happy.

Sigh.
I believe you missed the point I was making, because i didn't bother to 
actually write it out. :)

The point is that you've stated a possible suggestion based upon an 
assumption of  law that may or may not be true (in this case it isn't, 
at least in the US).
The correct thing in these situations is to *always* bump it to a lawyer 
(in this case, the FSF lawyers), not try to figure out whether a given 
answer may be acceptable, and if you don't get an acceptable answer, bump 
it to a lawyer, for two reasons:

1. What is really an acceptable answer based on the law may not  be the 
same as what you think it is :). (While it may turn out often that what a 
lawyer will accept is a lot more conservative than what you've come up 
with, this isn't always the case).


2. Even if you had the "lawyers acceptable answer", you aren't the one who 
can do anything with it, only the FSF/SC (or someone who officially 
represents GCC) can.

Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:09:13PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. What is really an acceptable answer based on the law may not  be the 
> same as what you think it is :). (While it may turn out often that what a 
> lawyer will accept is a lot more conservative than what you've come up 
> with, this isn't always the case).
> 
> 2. Even if you had the "lawyers acceptable answer", you aren't the one who 
> can do anything with it, only the FSF/SC (or someone who officially 
> represents GCC) can.

Anything legally tricky the SC does not look at; it goes straight to
RMS and Eben Moglen, or else we just stay away from it.