Open Stack

I think that would work for me. If it sounds good to everyone, we can run it by our lawyers just to be sure.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Alice King [alice_king at att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:55 PM
To: 'Richard Fontana'
Cc: legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Contribution snag.

Thanks Richard.   So then Jonathan would make a decision that where both of
two conditions were met, a modified version of the Federal Government
Contractor CLA would be used.  The two conditions would be (i) the work was
created by a contractor under a federal government contract, and (ii) the
copyright in the work is public domain.

I understand that the rule for federal contractors is that they do retain
copyright absent some exception or special term in the agreement.  In this
case, Batelle would have to decide, and represent to the Foundation, that
Kevin's work was public domain - presumably under the "de minimis" exception
suggested by the Batelle lawyer.

If we take this approach, it seems to me that the US Government CLA would be
the best CLA to non-materially revise since it already reflects that the
copyright is public domain.  The non-material revision could be the addition
of the sentence that appears in the Educational Community License:  "Any
patent license granted hereby with respect to contributions by an individual
employed by an institution or organization is limited to patent claims where
the individual that is the author of the Work is also the inventor of the
patent claims licensed, and where the organization or institution has the
right to grant such license under applicable grant and research funding
agreements. No other express or implied licenses are granted."

Is this consistent with what you are thinking might work?

Alice

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana at redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:35 PM
To: Alice King
Cc: legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Contribution snag.

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:56:05PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Given the obstacles contained in the OpenStack Foundation bylaws IP
> policy to flexibility in handling inbound contributions, I think the
> easiest solution (though not the most desirable one) would be for the
> Executive Director to make "non material amendments" to the Individual
> (and/or Corporate) CLA so that a federal government contractor not
> holding copyright on what is being contributed can use such a CLA.

Or perhaps the Executive Director could non-materially revise the US
Government CLA to have it cover the case of contributions coming in from
contractors?  I realize that might seem to contradict the essence of my
previous response, but the problem I see here is balancing reduction of
contributor red tape against the need for a fair IPR licensing policy.

 - RF


_______________________________________________
legal-discuss mailing list
legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss