Brian, First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its "compatibility" with the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL. No surprises for B. He's read the AFL and the GPL and he understands that he's doing what's allowed. Person C gets a copy of W+X or W'. He knows it is GPL software. Person C now wants to sue Person A for patent infringement by W. He reads W's license and discovers the Mutual Defense provision. He must evaluate his risk of losing rights to copy, modify or distribute W, W+X and W', and any other W-based software, if he sues A. What's wrong with making him evaluate that risk before suing for patent infringement? It's his patent, and he's (perhaps) within his rights to sue Person A for infringement. But as the author of an open source license, I don't have to make that easy or cheap for him to do. Perhaps the LICENSE file of any GPL-licensed work that contains an AFL-licensed component should contain a warning notice: WARNING: Your license to this work may automatically terminate if you sue Person A for patent infringement. That is because this work contains a component that is licensed to you by Person A under the AFL. You get to decide whether a patent infringement lawsuit against Person A is worth the loss of your rights to copy, modify or distribute Person A's contribution to this software. You're right in suggesting that the GPL has fostered a spirit of license trust, and that is wonderful. I'm seeking compatibility between the AFL and the GPL because I want to share in that good will and to encourage people to release source code that can be incorporated into GPL-licensed programs -- as well as into proprietary and other open source programs. The mutual defense provision of the AFL doesn't detract from that goal. It just causes those who would sue free and open source software for patent infringment to do their homework first and to recognize that it is no longer cheap and risk-free to do so. They only have to "crawl through the source code" if they elect to sue OSI Certified open source software for patent infringement. What's wrong with that? *************** Second, as to the trademark provision of the AFL: I recognize that there is inevitable confusion when one adds a new concept to the world of the GPL. But I've been following open source businesses for a while -- not as long as you, I admit! -- and I now recognize that the real source of success and profit for open source contributors and businesses is their trademarks, not just their copyrights. Contributors to free software create brand names and personal reputations [Linux (and GNU/Linux!), Apache, Red Hat, JBoss, OSI Certified, Free Software Foundation, RMS, Behlendorf] that we need to protect. I don't control the GPL so I can't do anything but encourage RMS to put a meaningful protection for trademarks into his license. But I do control the AFL, and I insist upon the importance of warning licensees that our brand names and our reputations are not included for free with our copyright licenses. That's not how this community works, and our licenses should make it explicit. That's not contradictory in any way to the GPL. You found such a trademark provision was helpful to the Apache Foundation, and quite frankly, I knew to write a trademark provision because of your lead. So please don't try to talk me out of doing what you already did so successfully. *************** Finally, your question about adding whitespace to an AFL-licensed program and re-licensing it under the Apache license: I don't understand why that is confusing or of concern. Anyone who picks up the code-plus-whitespace and uses it under the Apache license or the GPL has nothing to fear from Person A. All relevant licenses are open source and free. If Person B wants to create W+X or W', he must read the license for W and any other notices in the source code. There's nothing hidden from him. His customers certainly don't need to look behind the Apache or GPL license under which they received their software. If Person C wants to create W+X+Z or W'', he must read the licenses and any other notices in the source code. Person C's customers don't need to look behind their license from C. Each of those people will be informed of the license terms applicable to them and will be told that the source code is available. What more could anyone want? Of course, if anyone in that chain wants to sue Person A for patent infringement by W.... But I already told that story. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
