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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [email protected] on November 13. You can read it at > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
