4 ms·

If you submit a pull request, don't forget to separately mail the company the license agreement and all associated patents https://github.com/Nike-Inc/nike-inc

If you submit a pull request, don't forget to separately mail the company the license agreement and all associated patents https://github.com/Nike-Inc/nike-inc.github.io/blob/master/CLA.md https://github.com/Nike-Inc/nike-inc.github.io/blob/master/C...

slimsag 10y ago
Isn't it true that all open source projects need a Contributor License Agreement like this, or else someone could contribute code that is patented by them and later say "I contributed the code, but never said you could use my patented technology. You owe me money." in court? If that's the case, how do so many open source projects get away without them? Do companies individually vet patents for projects they use? (doubtful.. but maybe)
- ball_of_lint 10y ago
  I would imagine that if you submit code to an open source project and leave the license as it is, then you release that code under the license. The only way it wouldn't be is if someone other than the owner/copyright holder submitted patented code.
  - slimsag 10y ago
    But, the point is, code and patents aren't one in the same, and submitting code doesn't imply anything about patent ownership or rights. For example, I could try to submit a pull request to an audio/video project to add an H.264 decoder/encoder that I wrote myself. That is OK because I wrote the code, and therefor I own the copyright to that code. However, anyone who tries to use this code can be sued by MPEG LA for money or they can even ask them to cease and desist outright if they wish -- because it's their patented technology! It also works the other way around, if I wrote both the code and acquired a patent for the technology. A CLA is the only way to stay safe, as far as I understand, but most open source projects just don't use them (except very large ones, like the Linux kernel etc).
    - anewhnaccount 10y ago
      Many OSS licences include some sort of provision for patents. See for example here the Apache licence: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
      - slimsag 10y ago
        Neat! Thank you a ton for linking me to this page! I've never seen it before. According to this, then, Apache v2.0, GPL v3, and MPL 2.0 are the only (well known) licenses with explicit patent grants. It also mentions that there is an 'implicit' patent grant provided by the revised BSD license[1] but that it has never been tested in court (which I presume means it is not advised). I guess Apache 2.0 (or if you're a copyleft kind of guy, GPL3) is the way to go! [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Implicit_grants http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
        technomancy 10y ago
        The Eclipse Public License is a bit obscure off the JVM, but it actually has a good patent clause too.
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      > most open source projects just don't use them (except very large ones, like the Linux kernel etc Uhh ... The Linux kernel doesn't use a CLA. It uses Developer Certificates of Origin: the Signed-off-by lines.
      - slimsag 10y ago
        You're very right, my apologies!
- ak4g 10y ago
  The reality is that a contributor license agreement is of near-zero help to an open-source project; it's only present here because Nike's lawyers required it. But the surface area of 'contributions that infringe on patents held by the contributor' is infinitesimally smaller than 'contributions that infringe on any patent held by anyone else'. Non-trivial, inclusion-worthy patches don't just fall from the sky; certainly, if it ever were to happen, you can be sure that other developers will be doing a search for patents issued to that author. If anything were found, the patch author would be advised that the contribution could not be accepted, due to the patent. If and when a project's developers become aware that a technique used is patented, or even just potentially infringing pending some legal outcome, whatever would have to be ripped out is ripped out. But the patent, and the potential infringement, will not be discussed publicly. Open-source projects can't work any other way - the liability is on the users, not the developers, and it's not in their interest to expose their uses to "willful infringement" liability. Even public discussion of actual or potential infringement in is toxic - you would be asked to stop (privately). It is what it is. It's also not too problematic, in my limited experience. But that may well simply be because nobody tries to find infringement, for obvious reasons.
  - slimsag 10y ago
    So, to summarize part (but probably not all) of your argument, "a CLA doesn't help because _any change that could be patented_ would be caught by the reviewer of that change"? I wonder, in all honesty, how often do people search for patent infringement when accepting large inclusion-worthy PRs? I doubt very often, personally..
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html

slimsag 10y ago

Isn't it true that all open source projects need a Contributor License Agreement like this, or else someone could contribute code that is patented by them and later say "I contributed the code, but never said you could use my patented technology. You owe me money." in court? If that's the case, how do so many open source projects get away without them? Do companies individually vet patents for projects they use? (doubtful.. but maybe)

ball_of_lint 10y ago
I would imagine that if you submit code to an open source project and leave the license as it is, then you release that code under the license. The only way it wouldn't be is if someone other than the owner/copyright holder submitted patented code.
- slimsag 10y ago
  But, the point is, code and patents aren't one in the same, and submitting code doesn't imply anything about patent ownership or rights. For example, I could try to submit a pull request to an audio/video project to add an H.264 decoder/encoder that I wrote myself. That is OK because I wrote the code, and therefor I own the copyright to that code. However, anyone who tries to use this code can be sued by MPEG LA for money or they can even ask them to cease and desist outright if they wish -- because it's their patented technology! It also works the other way around, if I wrote both the code and acquired a patent for the technology. A CLA is the only way to stay safe, as far as I understand, but most open source projects just don't use them (except very large ones, like the Linux kernel etc).
  - anewhnaccount 10y ago
    Many OSS licences include some sort of provision for patents. See for example here the Apache licence: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
    - slimsag 10y ago
      Neat! Thank you a ton for linking me to this page! I've never seen it before. According to this, then, Apache v2.0, GPL v3, and MPL 2.0 are the only (well known) licenses with explicit patent grants. It also mentions that there is an 'implicit' patent grant provided by the revised BSD license[1] but that it has never been tested in court (which I presume means it is not advised). I guess Apache 2.0 (or if you're a copyleft kind of guy, GPL3) is the way to go! [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Implicit_grants http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
      - technomancy 10y ago
        The Eclipse Public License is a bit obscure off the JVM, but it actually has a good patent clause too.
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    > most open source projects just don't use them (except very large ones, like the Linux kernel etc Uhh ... The Linux kernel doesn't use a CLA. It uses Developer Certificates of Origin: the Signed-off-by lines.
    - slimsag 10y ago
      You're very right, my apologies!
ak4g 10y ago
The reality is that a contributor license agreement is of near-zero help to an open-source project; it's only present here because Nike's lawyers required it. But the surface area of 'contributions that infringe on patents held by the contributor' is infinitesimally smaller than 'contributions that infringe on any patent held by anyone else'. Non-trivial, inclusion-worthy patches don't just fall from the sky; certainly, if it ever were to happen, you can be sure that other developers will be doing a search for patents issued to that author. If anything were found, the patch author would be advised that the contribution could not be accepted, due to the patent. If and when a project's developers become aware that a technique used is patented, or even just potentially infringing pending some legal outcome, whatever would have to be ripped out is ripped out. But the patent, and the potential infringement, will not be discussed publicly. Open-source projects can't work any other way - the liability is on the users, not the developers, and it's not in their interest to expose their uses to "willful infringement" liability. Even public discussion of actual or potential infringement in is toxic - you would be asked to stop (privately). It is what it is. It's also not too problematic, in my limited experience. But that may well simply be because nobody tries to find infringement, for obvious reasons.
- slimsag 10y ago
  So, to summarize part (but probably not all) of your argument, "a CLA doesn't help because _any change that could be patented_ would be caught by the reviewer of that change"? I wonder, in all honesty, how often do people search for patent infringement when accepting large inclusion-worthy PRs? I doubt very often, personally..
ashitlerferad 10y ago
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html