[cfe-dev] Intel open sources OpenMP runtime

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> To: "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> Cc: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:52:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Intel open sources OpenMP runtime
> 
> On 04/29/13 01:31 PM, David Chisnall wrote:
> > On 26 Apr 2013, at 16:10, Andrey Bokhanko<andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, the link is:
> >> http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/391053 (without
> >> trailing dot)
> > This doesn't actually answer the question, it just says it will
> > remove the mentions of the patents from the license.  This does
> > not make the library safe to use and redistribute (at most, it
> > means that people who download it after the explicit mention of
> > the patents can't be accused as easily of wilful infringement).  A
> > BSD-licensed project must include an explicit (separate) patent
> > license to be safe to use in any jurisdiction where the patents
> > are valid.  See Google's WebM for an example.
> Van Lindberg told me to google: implied patents. I don't know if we
> get
> get more from Intel than this

So I tried this ;) -- and, FWIW, did not find much that was actually useful. The most useful thing seemed to be an except from The IT/digital Legal Companion: A Comprehensive Business Guide to Software ... (edited by Amy J. Mastrobattista) which states on page 255, "It is likely -- but not certain -- that a grantor of an open source software license which is silent on patent matters does, nevertheless, grant an implied license under US federal law for use of patent rights held by the licensor that are necessary to exercise the license." Then again, this book is from 2008, so maybe there is some more-recent case law that makes these issues more certain.

 -Hal

> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>