Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:
> Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
> directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
>> Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this isn't the right way to solve it.
>
> Which fight are we talking about here?
>
> The fight against patents is certainly Apache's fight. Their strategy
> (require a patent grant for all contributions) seems like a potentially
> useful way to fight back. The patent grant (4b) seems to be the key part
> of this strategy. Other than the mixing of patent and copyright, it
> seems few people have issues with it.
>
> I'm not sure if there's a separate "fight" behind the reciprocity clause
> (#5). Is it there as another defense mechanism, or is it there to make
> 4b more palatable to patent holders?
The fact that the license can be revoked over unrelated squabbles
between users and authors appears to be an attempt to make software
patents impractical and useless. If it only made software patents *on
Apache* useless (the second clause of S5), I'd think it reasonable.
That would parallel what the GNU GPL does for copyrights for example.
What's currently there attempts to use the usefulness of Apache to buy
non-enforcement of software patents elsewhere, which I believe is
inappropriate for Free Software.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: