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

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

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:19:35AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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?

Are you attempting to suggest that because companies choose to spend
money on gaining patent licenses, they should be permitted to restrict
people from using it? If not, then I can't see what the relevance is.

They can either avoid taking out a patent, or they can grant a free
license for its use. I don't care which. There's no excuse for them
taking out a patent and then only granting a non-free license for its

Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.

(And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
*hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
gain a software patent, you merely have to describe the general method
by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: