[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

> bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>> > Scripsit bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
>> >
>> >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
>> >> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
>> >> standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed for
>> >> any use which implements that standard.
>> >
>> > A patent license that applies only to implementations of a specific
>> > standard is not free (as in free speech).
>> Can you explain this to me?  I see free software, and some external
>> limits on how you may use certain modifications of it.
> You can't modify the code in the webserver to improve the parsing of
> your favorite editor.

But you couldn't add those features to your favorite editor *anyway*,
because they're patented.  Unlike copyright, chain of custody and
derivation is irrelevant for patents.


Reply to: