[OpenAFS] is YFS a "derived work"?
Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:51:46 -0400
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Carnegie Mellon University has no IP claims on the AFS sources. All IP
rights to AFS are property of IBM. In 2000, IBM published the AFS
sources for use by third parties under the IBM Public License 1.0. This
is the license agreement that covers the original distribution from IBM
and contributions to OpenAFS that modify IBM originated modules.
The IBMPL1.0 explicitly states that it is not viral. In other words,
shipping an independently developed module with code governed by the
IBMPL1.0 does not require the use of the IBMPL1.0 for the independent
modules. Additional code has been accepted over the last twelve years
using the MIT, UMich, and BSD licenses.
The copyright on contributions to OpenAFS belongs to the "Author" as
listed in the source code repository. Copyright holders are permitted
to provide YFSI alternate licensing for source code modules not derived
from IBM's original contribution. More than 50% of the code
contributions to OpenAFS since IBM OpenAFS 1.0 was authored by a YFSI
The IBMPL1.0 explicitly addresses patent rights. The other form of IP
involved is trademark law. YFSI will not violate IBM's "AFS" trademark.
New software modules such as rxgk and the Windows file system redirector
are independently developed and are not derivatives of OpenAFS. They
are not governed by the IBMPL1.0.
If you have questions about how the applicable licensing works, I
suggest that you contact an intellectual property attorney.
On 10/1/2012 1:21 PM, Ted Creedon wrote:
> The IP (intellectual property) in YFS seems to be derived from AFS's IP=
> If that case can be made, IBM or any other entity could force YFS back
> into the open source domain.
> The "look and feel" of YFS may also be a problem - see "Broderbund" or
> better yet their attorney's web page.
> My direct experience is from a dispute Tektronix had with ParcPlace ove=
> Smalltalk licensing back in the '80's.
> AFS may be able to claim infringement against other file systems becaus=
> of its prior art (but its unpatented?).
> Which brings up a point, has IBM or CMU protected AFS's IP in any way?
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----