Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
> Subject: Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
> To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Date: 17 Nov 2003 23:01:38 +0000
> Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>
> 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).
Whoah. You're right, I missed that.
OK, that might actually be Free. I'm not sure, and I'll need to think
about it hard. It also seems to be a fine enough point that it
invites situations akin to Pine: a malicious or just confused
copyright^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H patent holder might interpret it differently.
-Brian
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: "Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>