<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Again: please explain in case
of *BSD OSes ? </p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">Le
24 novembre 2016 19:20:03 Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com> a écrit :</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands of
discussions over more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in
consuming open source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA
offering any realistic assurance to a downstream
consumer.<div><br></div><div>Were I involved in a discussion around patent
risk in DPDK, I would point to its license.</div><div><br></div><div>That
said (and keeping in mind that IANAL), I do *not* see any patent protection
in the BSD license similar to what one sees in the Apache 2 license, or the
Eclipse Public License. Please note: I am not advocating here for a
license change, just drawing attention to my perspective as someone
who's been deeply involved in such things for a long
time.</div><div><br></div><div>Ed</div></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at
12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com"
target="_blank">vincent.jardin@6wind.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Matt,<br>
<br>
Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not
proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not
require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>