Intel open sources OpenMP runtime

Hi

Slightly OT, but I hope not too much since I've seen some recent OpenMP interest here.

From: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@pathscale.com>
To: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:48:25 AM
Subject: [cfe-dev] Intel open sources OpenMP runtime

Hi

Slightly OT, but I hope not too much since I've seen some recent
OpenMP
interest here.

Indeed, not too OT :wink: this is good news.

------------
Not sure who may have noticed already, but Intel open sourced their
OpenMP runtime. It claims to support 2.5, 3.0 and partial 4.0
(pending
final ratification)
http://www.openmprtl.org/

Question - BSD style license unlike GPLv3 or APLv2 does not contain
any
explicit patent license. Unlike most other BSD style licensed
projects,
in the license and sources several patents are explicitly listed as
being used.

Yes, I agree that the current disclosure needs (public) clarification.

Does anyone have an Intel contact who may be able to track down an
answer?
----------
I've made a github fork for convenience
https://github.com/pathscale/openmprtl/

Thanks!

-Hal

All,

There is a similar question (and an answer) posted there: http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/391053.

Yours,
Andrey

Sorry, the link is: http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/391053 (without trailing dot)

The dot didn't get picked up in the URL

This doesn't actually answer the question, it just says it will remove the mentions of the patents from the license. This does not make the library safe to use and redistribute (at most, it means that people who download it after the explicit mention of the patents can't be accused as easily of wilful infringement). A BSD-licensed project must include an explicit (separate) patent license to be safe to use in any jurisdiction where the patents are valid. See Google's WebM for an example.

David

Van Lindberg told me to google: implied patents. I don't know if we get get more from Intel than this

From: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@pathscale.com>
To: "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:52:55 AM
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Intel open sources OpenMP runtime

>
>> Sorry, the link is:
>> http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/391053 (without
>> trailing dot)
> This doesn't actually answer the question, it just says it will
> remove the mentions of the patents from the license. This does
> not make the library safe to use and redistribute (at most, it
> means that people who download it after the explicit mention of
> the patents can't be accused as easily of wilful infringement). A
> BSD-licensed project must include an explicit (separate) patent
> license to be safe to use in any jurisdiction where the patents
> are valid. See Google's WebM for an example.
Van Lindberg told me to google: implied patents. I don't know if we
get
get more from Intel than this

So I tried this :wink: -- and, FWIW, did not find much that was actually useful. The most useful thing seemed to be an except from The IT/digital Legal Companion: A Comprehensive Business Guide to Software ... (edited by Amy J. Mastrobattista) which states on page 255, "It is likely -- but not certain -- that a grantor of an open source software license which is silent on patent matters does, nevertheless, grant an implied license under US federal law for use of patent rights held by the licensor that are necessary to exercise the license." Then again, this book is from 2008, so maybe there is some more-recent case law that makes these issues more certain.

-Hal

I found this, but we just have to wait to see what Intel does from here
http://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/potential_defenses.pdf

Feel free to reply privately, but I think this thread should stop.

Apologies

./C