Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
> > bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> >> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Scripsit bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
> >> >
> >> >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
> >> >> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
> >> >> standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed for
> >> >> any use which implements that standard.
> >> >
> >> > A patent license that applies only to implementations of a specific
> >> > standard is not free (as in free speech).
> >> 
> >> Can you explain this to me?  I see free software, and some external
> >> limits on how you may use certain modifications of it.
> >
> > You can't modify the code in the webserver to improve the parsing of
> > your favorite editor.
> 
> But you couldn't add those features to your favorite editor *anyway*,
> because they're patented.  Unlike copyright, chain of custody and
> derivation is irrelevant for patents.

I was answering the question of why software with a narrow patent
grant is not free.  You are not free to modify the code.

But this only comes up if there is an actual patent that applies to
the software.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu