Re: Proposed Apache license & patent/reciprocity issues
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 2003-11-14 02:21:18 +0000 Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, you have precedent against you. The IBM Common Public
> > License has just such a clause
>
> It seems that this particular aspect (actions unrelated to the work
> affecting the right to use the work) was not covered in previous
> discussions at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00213.html
>
> Maybe only revoking grants "under this License" was considered the
> saving grace? Can anyone give a reference with that conclusion? I
> can't find it. The other possibility is that people misread "this
> software" in place of "software". Are licences which discriminate
> against people engaged in unrelated legal action against you
> DFSG-free? (I am looking at 5 and 9.)
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license. Since
Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with patents that are
being enforced, it was considered fine [1]. There was even a comment
praising the patent stuff [2]. Basically, if there was a patent being
enforced then Debian might start worrying about these clauses.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00218.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199905/msg00132.html
Reply to: