[OpenAFS] is YFS a "derived work"?
Ted Creedon
tcreedon@easystreet.net
Tue, 2 Oct 2012 06:12:07 -0700
--bcaec52d5873e06df404cb1344e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
http://opensource.org/licenses/ipl-1.0
IBM PL 1.0 states:
*Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are
separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program
under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the
Program. *
All software I've received in conjunction with the Program are derivative
works, including the NIM and Windows Client.
YFS needs to demonstrate that it is an Original Work and doesn't look to me
like it is.
Its one more Contribution.
What is the opinion of the Elders?
Ted
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
> Let's look at this another way...
>
> If someone actually bothers to file an IP lawsuit of any sort regarding
> AFS,
> then I think this would be the most credible sign of success I could
> possibly
> imagine.
>
> And then, in that case, if there were an issue, there would be sufficient
> community resources to re-write offending code, or re-purpose/extend things
> like Arla, or the linux kernel kafs client.
>
> What would be the downside of someone 'forcing' YFS back into the open
> source domain? By that time, there should be plenty of customers wanting
> support contracts that it won't matter.
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:21:54AM -0700, 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.
> >
> > http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/stern-claude-m.aspx
> >
> > My direct experience is from a dispute Tektronix had with ParcPlace over
> > Smalltalk licensing back in the '80's.
> >
> > AFS may be able to claim infringement against other file systems because
> of
> > its prior art (but its unpatented?).
> >
> > Which brings up a point, has IBM or CMU protected AFS's IP in any way?
> >
> > Tedc
>
--bcaec52d5873e06df404cb1344e4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<a href=3D"http://opensource.org/licenses/ipl-1.0" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/opensource.org/licenses/ipl-1.0</a><br><br>IBM PL 1.0 states:<br><br><i>Co=
ntributions do not include additions to the Program which:
(i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with
the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not
derivative works of the Program.
</i><br><br>All software I've received in conjunction with the Program =
are derivative works, including the NIM and Windows Client.<br><br>YFS need=
s to demonstrate that it is an Original Work and doesn't look to me lik=
e it is.<br>
<br>Its one more Contribution.<br><br>What is the opinion of the Elders?<br=
>
<br>Ted<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:hozer@hozed.org" target=3D"_blank">hozer@hozed.org</a>></s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Let's look at this another way...<br>
<br>
If someone actually bothers to file an IP lawsuit of any sort regarding AFS=
,<br>
then I think this would be the most credible sign of success I could possib=
ly<br>
imagine.<br>
<br>
And then, in that case, if there were an issue, there would be sufficient<b=
r>
community resources to re-write offending code, or re-purpose/extend things=
<br>
like Arla, or the linux kernel kafs client.<br>
<br>
What would be the downside of someone 'forcing' YFS back into the o=
pen<br>
source domain? By that time, there should be plenty of customers wanting<br=
>
support contracts that it won't matter.<br>
<div><div><br>
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:21:54AM -0700, Ted Creedon wrote:<br>
> The IP (intellectual property) in YFS seems to be derived from AFS'=
;s IP.<br>
><br>
> If that case can be made, IBM or any other entity could force YFS back=
into<br>
> the open source domain.<br>
><br>
> The "look and feel" of YFS may also be a problem - see "=
;Broderbund" or<br>
> better yet their attorney's web page.<br>
><br>
> <a href=3D"http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/stern-claude-m.aspx" =
target=3D"_blank">http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/stern-claude-m.aspx=
</a><br>
><br>
> My direct experience is from a dispute Tektronix had with ParcPlace ov=
er<br>
> Smalltalk licensing back in the '80's.<br>
><br>
> AFS may be able to claim infringement against other file systems becau=
se of<br>
> its prior art (but its unpatented?).<br>
><br>
> Which brings up a point, has IBM or CMU protected AFS's IP in any =
way?<br>
><br>
> Tedc<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--bcaec52d5873e06df404cb1344e4--