Why:
We have to make a decision about some sort of patent "peace
contract" between Eclipse/MPWG Members (not the world) and we have
to choose between a liberal variant (Implementation Patent
License, IPL) or a narrower one (Compatible Patent Licence, CPL).
In an "Implementation First" approach process we think it is
important to protect members and users of MicroProfile as early as
possible during the process to prevent unnecessary lawsuits or
blocking early adoption.
While from the patent protection view CPL is a subset of IPL, the
usage of CPL within Jakarta EE as (current) default (there was no
choice between two options at the time of defining the process and
patent licence there) and IPL in MicroProfile is compatible.
Note:
In the EU software patents should not be allowed - while the
practical truth of the EPA might be something different...
With my 5-minutes-attention to the topic I personally tended to
CPL: As a technician I like deterministic behaviour with TCK proof
instead or lawyers opinion.
With 30-minutes-attention I changed my mind, because I learned the
patent licence is something different form the guarantee to have
100% compatibility of implementations to the specifications - the
last one will be established due to run the TCK successfully and
can be showed through TCK result and the allowed usage of the MP
Compatibility Logo.
For the current contest for that logo it might be not enough to
let the contributors sign the standard EF Contribution Agreement -
as it guarantees non-exclusive use to the EF and not exclusive use
(or grant by passing the TCK) of the MicroProfile Working Group?
But that´s another story ;-)
Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer too :-)
Jan Westerkamp
PS: Many thanks to the attendees of the MicroProfile talk we had
last week at JUG Darmstadt, where I had the chance to discuss this
topic with them afterwards.
Am 26.05.21 um 20:58 schrieb David
Blevins:
+1 for Implementation Patent License
We have a
compatibility program we're building to motivate compliance.
For the
Compatible Patent License: If an implementor viewed the legal
risk as a motivator for being compliant, it would be seen by
those same eyes as a motivator to not implement a spec before
it is final. We want people implementing specs early, before
they are final, as that leads to the highest quality final
product with the most implementations. Getting an
implementors feedback after a spec is final creates more
opportunities for after-the-fact insights and potential for
backwards incompatible changes.
The MicroProfile
Steering Committee needs to select its patent license. The
ballot language requires verbiage that Steering Committee
can vote on (+1,-1,0), and the two patent license verbiage
options are outlined below. Here is a recent post by Mike
Milinkovich on the patent license topic, and David wrote up an example.
Neither claim to be lawyers :-) The intellectual property
policy is here (pdf).
While anyone can select their preferred
patent license ballot option, only steering committee
member selection will be counted towards the selected
ballot language. Once consensus is reached, the
Steering Committee will conduct a ballot on the
preferred option.
Please select the desired patent license:
Implementation Patent
License
RESOLVED, the MicroProfile Steering
Committee approves the use of the
Implementation Patent License as
defined in the Eclipse Foundation Intellectual
Property Policy for all
specifications under the purview of this Working
Group.
or
Compatible Patent
License
RESOLVED, the MicroProfile Steering
Committee approves the use of the
Compatible Patent License as defined
in the Eclipse Foundation Intellectual
Property Policy for all
specifications under the purview of this Working
Group.
