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

[Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
> > cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
> > strategy.
> 
> Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
> licensed freely to the general public.

... unless it's licensed with a condition that if you sue them, the
patent grant is withdrawn.  That seems to be the purpose of the 
reciprocity clause.

It seems the intent is to require a patent license (under 4b), while
still allowing those patents to be used defensively (against other
patents).

At least on its face, it seems like a useful compromise: companies
often legitimately won't want to give out unrecovable patent licenses,
since they need them to defend against other, hostile patent holders.

Still undecided.  I can sympathise both with attempts to find defenses
against patents (of which free software has scarce few), and to do so in
a way that doesn't force others to weaken their own patent defenses.

-- 
Glenn Maynard