Re: DFSG-freeness of Apache Software Licenses
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org> writes:
> On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 08:32 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
> > not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> > running the Program is not restricted, ...." might have something to
> > do with it.
>
> The act of running the Program is not restricted by the proposed Apache
> license either. We don't need to list all of the things that are not
> restricted by the license.
Wait, I'm confused. To fix ideas, suppose CorpA contributes code to httpd
which is covered under their PatentA. CorpZ is a lawfirm that uses
httpd solely to manage and maintain their patent portfolio, and
decides to sue the ASF over a patent violation within httpd. Do they
retain the right to continued use of httpd (i.e. is CorpA's patent
license to CorpZ revoked)?
Now what if CorpB distibutes a derivative version of httpd under the GPL
(assuming whatever license we adopt admits this), and CorpZ obtains
their httpd from CorpB. Wouldn't Clause 0 of the GPL prevent CorpA
from revoking their patent license to CorpZ?
In other words, to declare compatibility with the GPL, isn't it necessary
that CorpZ retains the right to continued use of the webserver, whether
or not they get it from CorpB or the ASF?
--
Joe Schaefer
Reply to: