On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > No, the patent (if there was one) would be an additional restriction > on the GPL. The Apache License itself is not the patent and does not > restrict the GPL any more than the GPL would have been restricted by > the patent absent the Apache License.
Let me make a more limited, but far more convoluted, claim: "Code incorporating patents (when the code and contributors' patents are licensed solely under the Apache License Version 2.0) cannot be (safely?) incorporated into a derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because any recipient who receives a copy of such a derivative work is required to refrain from alleging infringement of any of his own patents incorporated into the original Apache-License-only code. (That requirement is more strict than the GPL's requirement to license the patent for GPL use.)" -- Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
