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

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

I'm not cc'ing the apache license list, as I suspect tempers will stay
cooler if debian-legal reaches a consensus, then contacts Apache.

Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:

> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> I believe Arnoud Engelfriet mentioned that this clause (#5) has been
>> removed from the draft.  I havn't checked.  If so, that's good; this
>> is clearly the most problematic clause.
>
> Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
> version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=license@apache.org&msgNo=24

Thanks.  I think the new S5 looks like this:

   5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
      entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
      alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without
      modification (other than modifications that are
      Contribution(s)), constitutes direct or contributory patent
      infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
      License for that Contribution or such Work shall terminate as of
      the date such litigation is filed.

That's certainly better.  It still has a problem in the following
scenario:

1. I start using Apache.

2. I develop a new process -- let's say an encryption algorithm, like
   RSA -- and patent it.

3. Somebody contributes an implementation of my algorithm to Apache.
   This somebody has patents on critical parts of Apache.

Now I'm screwed: I can't sue Apache for illegally using my work
without my permission, or I'll lose my license to their code.

What this amounts to is a non-Free patent license, since it is
revocable by an unrelated lawsuit.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/