Re: Proposed Apache license & patent/reciprocity issues
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>
> MJ> On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 +0000 Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>
> MJ> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> MJ> I think I can buy this. We evaluate the licence as if it
> MJ> contains no patent grants and see if that minimal state still
> MJ> meets the DFSG. The licence must only revoke the non-essential
> MJ> grants in this case and not the entire licence.
>
> I also buy this.
>
> I believe that the needs of the free software community are best met
> by patnet strategies that make it more expensive and difficult to
> enforce patents. And so to the extent we can do so while still being
> consistent with the letter of the DFSG, we should be sympathetic to
> such attempts.
Erm. If you said "software patents," you'd be more in line with my
own beliefs. As it is... the needs of the free software community
would be best met by making all sorts of things more expensive and
difficult. I don't think licenses which prohibit voting Republican
are Free, and I don't think licenses which prohibit exercising other
legal right unrelated to the software in question are Free.
In particular, licenses which become non-free when I bring up an
unrelated law-suit are not Free.
-Brian
> We do not want to get in the position of evaluating the validity of
> patents and I do not think we want to penalize people for granting
> patent licenses to the community as a hole even if those licenses have
> strange strings attached.
Reply to: