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

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)

>    5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
>       entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
>       alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without
>       modification (other than modifications that are
>       Contribution(s)), constitutes direct or contributory patent
>       infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
>       License for that Contribution or such Work shall terminate as of
>       the date such litigation is filed.

> That's certainly better.  It still has a problem in the following
> scenario:
> 1. I start using Apache.
> 2. I develop a new process -- let's say an encryption algorithm, like
>    RSA -- and patent it.
> 3. Somebody contributes an implementation of my algorithm to Apache.
>    This somebody has patents on critical parts of Apache.
> Now I'm screwed: I can't sue Apache for illegally using my work
> without my permission, or I'll lose my license to their code.

I don't see that. If is only the grants "under this License *for* that
Contribution or such Work" that terminate. If you does not use the
version of Apache with your work in it, then your license to the
version you do use does not self-destruct as a consequence of your suit.

You may be screwed if you only discover the violation after you
yourself have converted your website to use an Apache version that
itself contains the violation. In that case you will need to backport
the new features you need to an older Apache that does not contain
your patent (and which thus has a license that will not self-destruct).

-- 
Henning Makholm          "Also, the letters are printed. That makes the task
                        of identifying the handwriting much more difficult."