[indiana-discuss] [osol-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?

[Joerg Schilling]

Brian Utterback <brian.utterback at sun.com> wrote:

> We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the 
> SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout 
> of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting 
> rights to patents included in the contribution, but the other 
> interpretation is that it grants rights to all patents owned by the 
> contributor.
>
> As Casper is saying, strictly speaking and according to the rules of 
> law, it may not be ambiguous at all. However, the fact that a 
> reasonable person reading the sentence might interpret it the other 
> way suggests that it could be worded better, even if a court would 
> never interpret it that way.
>
> Of course, simply removing the ambiguous parts would not be an option. 
> Clarifying them would be.

This is correct, but it is not only the patent sectioon but also the missing
definition of a "contribution". The latter is more important for me.



Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily