[odf-discuss] ODF adoption considered in Oregon

[marbux]

I've only given the legislation a quick skim, so this isn't my
definitive pronouncement. :-) But as I recall, the "legal
restrictions" language applied only to the file format, not the
software.

Alex, on Sun's title for its covenant, it is common for covenants not
to sue to have different titles. The legal community uses "covenant
not to sue" as a shorthand reference for the *type* of document. The
operative word is "covenant." That indicates that it is an obligation
that runs with the property owned, i.e., that intellectual property
law is used to interpret it. There are similar documents that are
analyzed under under other kinds of law. E.g., a "promise not to sue"
is governed by the equitable estoppel law of implied contracts.
Another type is a "waiver of rights," governed by the equitable law of
waiver. All as viewed from the U.S., of course, although the relevant
legal concepts trace to the UK (and likely even further back into
history).

Best regards,

Marbux

On 3/29/07, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
> Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Since a license (which stands on the copyright laws) is always a legal
> > restriction and often imposes restrictions that in some manner can be called
> > technical (like not being able to use GPL in proprietary code and sell that).
> >
>
> Usually, a free software license doesn't actually restrict anything -
> for a license to be able to restrict things which weren't already
> restricted by copyright law would mean that the license would need to
> become a proper contract, I think. Licenses like the GPL simply say,
> "You can treat this as your permission to do <certain acts like running,
> copying software> so long as you obey these rules" - you don't have to
> obey the rules, but then the GPL can't be your defence when the author
> sues you for copyright infringement.
>
> So, it would probably come down to whether or not the copyrights
> themselves were seen as a legal restriction: I suspect that they
> wouldn't, because the copyright of the standard doesn't apply to the
> implementation of the standard (generally speaking).
>
> Marbux's point about Sun's Convenant not to Sue (they actually call it a
> Patent Non-Assertion Covenant; CNS is the MS version) is slightly
> trickier, though: patents aren't automatic, so gaining a patent which
> applies to a standard is much more obviously a legal restriction. In
> fact, you don't even need to sue Sun for it to kick in: threats to sue
> are enough, I think.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>