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

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

> 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 you are also not free to flap a printout of the code and fly, or
to modify the code to say "Brian Sniffen likes COBOL", or to use the
code to harass somebody, or otherwise use the code to break the law.

The patent prevents you from solving the covered problem, no matter
how you come to that solution.  So the unlawfullness of integrating
the patented method into the parsing of your favorite text editor has
nothing to do with the web server.  Saying that the webserver's code
is thus unfree -- attributing the unlawfulness to the method by which
you became aware of the unlawful option -- seems wrong to me.

-Brian