Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > On the other hand, copyright springs into being automatically. It
> > makes sense for somebody who have accidentally become bestowed with a
> > copyright to explicitly license it to the general public under free
> > terms, if he wants to create a situation reminiscent of the one where
> > he does not have a copyright.
> Are you attempting to suggest that a "sane company" doesn't want to
> hold copyright in the software they create?
It is apparent (many concrete examples in Debian) that some companies
create software without wanting very much of the protection that
copyright gives by default.
> The argument proposed was attempting to say "No company is ever going
> to grant free patent licenses"; I pointed out the argument applies
> equally to software
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
it (or at least keep an option open for using the patent to restrict
what people do). If they do not intend that, why would they apply for
a patent at all in the first place?
> (it's the same one that proprietary software advocates have been
> making for about 20 years, claiming that free software can't work),
No, it has nothing to do with that argument.
--
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."
Reply to: