Re: [email@example.com: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
> > No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> > fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a reciprocity
> > clause.
> No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> fully paid-up and royalty free copyright license without a reciprocity
There's the difference that it takes explicit action and quite a bit
of money to acquire and keep holding a patent. Going through that
trouble just to grant the public a perpetual, non-exclusive,
worldwide, fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a
reciprocity clause would be senseless. An easier way to achieve the
same legal result would be not to take out a patent at all.
On the other hand, copyright springs into being automatically. It
makes sense for somebody who have accidentally become bestowed with a
copyright to explicitly license it to the general public under free
terms, if he wants to create a situation reminiscent of the one where
he does not have a copyright.
Henning Makholm "Nej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe
leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel!"