Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:19:01AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Here's a bit from a hypothetical software license:
>> In addition, by using this software, you grant to the Original Author a
>> non-exclusive right to use, modify, and/or distribute any work of which you
>> own copyright, for as long as you use or distribute The Program.
>>
>> Clearly, no one would argue that this license is a Free Software license.
>> It requires a significant cost (all of your copyrights) to use the software.
>>
>> However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is requiring.
>> As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
>> for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use Apache.
>
> The only problem I see here is return fire: if I'm holding patents as a
> defense strategy, I want to be able to use them to return fire if an
> Apache contributor decides to attack me with his own patents, unrelated
> to Apache.
>
> I can't decide if that makes it non-free, or is just an ugly loophole in
> the license.
So an Apache contributor who owns patents on parts of Apache can force
Apache users to either license him their unrelated patents at no cost,
or give up their right to use (his patents in) Apache.
The two paths provided, then, are payment or arbitrary revocation of
the license. That's non-free.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: