Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 14:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > > The act of running the Program is not restricted by the proposed Apache > > license either. We don't need to list all of the things that are not > > restricted by the license. > > It is if your patent license is revoked.
Software that is licensed to you under the GPL, for which you subsequently use in a patent-infringing way, is no different in this regard. You are not free use GPL software to violate the law, not even if you refuse to accept its terms. My interpretation of the FSF's comments on the license@ list are that, in their view, a GPL-v2 licensor _implicitly_ forfeits any patent claims that would apply to the licensed software. However, that fact alone does not imply the proposed license is _incompatible_ with the GPL-v2: an author of a derivative work may be willing to forfeit such patent claims without insisting that the authors of the original work forfeit theirs also. FWIW, I personally don't give a damn about the ASF adopting a license which does not _guarantee_ DFSG-freeness. However, I do care if it the license makes it impossible to comply, and I find comments along those lines to be far more persuasive. -- Joe Schaefer
