Clarification on license for listed patents

Clarification on license for listed patents

Hi

BSD style licenses don't cover patents at all. Can you please clarify the license or permitted use of the software containing the patents listed.

    U.S. Patent 5,812,852
    U.S. Patent 6,792,599
    U.S. Patent 7,069,556
    U.S. Patent 7,328,433
    U.S. Patent 7,500,242

If this is the incorrect place to inquire about this matter please redirect me to the appropriate contact.

Thanks

Christopher

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

This is the right place to ask.

I am not a lawyer,so

  1. I will have to check with them
  2. This is not a definitive statement

However it is certainly our intent that the library is freely usable in commercial products.

Hi James,

Great to see you active here. I really appreciate your response and good luck in chasing down a more binding answer.

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

I don't know if it fits with Intel's licensing strategy, but the easiest way may be to change the license to APL2 or dual license it BSD/APL2. Some explicit patent licensing language could be added, but that may be more expensive or super low priority to get done.

Regards,

Christopher

Christoper,

We have updated the licensing page to be completely clear that this code is released under a standard 3-clause BSD license, full-stop.  The patent notices you asked about appear in the source code, not in the license, just to document that a few parts of the implementation are covered by patents.  To avoid confusion, we’re going to remove the patent number comments from the source code when we make our next release. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that there is patented code in the implementation, but that’s nothing new or unusual: many open-source projects include patented code.  The important thing is that the project is being run under a completely standard BSD license, in just the same way as many other BSD-licensed open-source projects.

I hope that clarifies things.

LLVM/CLANG explicitly removes code which may infringe on a patent

http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright-license-and-patents

I don't know of any open source project which knowingly infringes on a patent. (I hope you'd contact the project and tell them if you know of an example) GPLv3 and APL2 grant a patent license.

With or without the list of patents - it's very clear using this software is without explicit permission.of Intel. A BSD license simply does not cover patents.

I hope the issue can be more authoritatively answered. The opinions expressed in this forum are simply not binding.

It is our firm intention to make this code legally compatible with LLVM, since one of the main reasons we decided to open-source it at all was to support the current project to implement OpenMP in CLANG (as presented today at the 2013 European LLVM Conference in Paris).

If we don't have all the legal 'i's dotted and 't's crossed yet, we will certainly make sure that we do by the time we need to.

As you have said, "The opinions expressed in this forum are simply not binding.", so there seems little point carrying on the discussion here any further. All I can do is say again that

  • The code is licensed with a 3 clause BSD license
  • It is our intention to be entirely compatible with all LLVM requirements

how do you clarify license on the patents? What procedure is followed?

Patent attorney are qualified people who usually get accreditation from the Law School degree where they enter after clearing the exam of Law School Admission Test. To know more about paten attorney visit this website.

Monty Ross

Please see the announcement about our release at openmp.llvm.org. I hopeyou can agree that  our actions there back up our words here, since we have now made the runtime available with a fully LLVM compatible license (and associated patent grant).

Thanks Jim! Great work

Leave a Comment

Please sign in to add a comment. Not a member? Join today