Skip to Main Content
Apache Events The Apache Software Foundation
Apache 20th Anniversary Logo

This was extracted (@ 2024-01-04 18:10) from a list of minutes which have been approved by the Board.
Please Note The Board typically approves the minutes of the previous meeting at the beginning of every Board meeting; therefore, the list below does not normally contain details from the minutes of the most recent Board meeting.

WARNING: these pages may omit some original contents of the minutes.
This is due to changes in the layout of the source minutes over the years. Fixes are being worked on.

Meeting times vary, the exact schedule is available to ASF Members and Officers, search for "calendar" in the Foundation's private index page (svn:foundation/private-index.html).

Patent FAQ

20 Sep 2006

 Doug Cutting drafted the following for the board to vote on:

 Q: If my company owns a patent and contributes to a project,
 and, at the time our contribution is included in the project,
 none of our patent claims are subject to Apache's Grant of
 Patent License, is there any way any of those patent claims
 would later become subject to the Grant of Patent License
 solely due to subsequent contributions by other parties?

 A.  No.  Patent claims subject to the Grant of Patent License
 are determined at the time of the patent holder's contribution.
 If, when you contribute to a project, your patent claims are
 necessarily infringed as a result of your contribution, then
 those patent claims are subject to the Grant of Patent License
 (even if your patent issues or is acquired later).  But, if
 your patent claims are necessarily infringed only after a
 subsequent contribution by another party, the other party's
 contribution will not cause your patent claims to be subject to
 the Grant of Patent License.

 It was noted that the above was not in a format for
 the board to vote on, but it was discussed none-the-less.
 Doug was upset that the issue was still being debated, instead
 of a vote being held on it. Some directors were less than
 clear on what exactly was being asked, since the Answer seems
 to answer 2 questions, somewhat related but different. It was
 also agreed that despite claims that the above would be
 "limited" in scope, a board vote on it would make it a much
 more general policy, not something specific. Greg stressed that
 the board would be much more pro-active in following and addressing
 the discussion on the board list for this issue.