Eben Moglen scripsit: > A developer, X, adds GPL'd code to Apache, and distributes the combination. > The combined code, including the GPL'd code itself, practices the > teaching of a patent, P, licensed under ASL2. A user, Y, asserts a > defensive patent claim of infringement by Apache. Is the license to > practice patent P in the GPL'd code added to Apache by X withdrawn or > in force? Is the license as to the ASL code combined with the GPL > code withdrawn or in force? > > I have been assuming, on the basis of the license text, which seemed > clear to me, that the answer is "withdrawn/withdrawn." Your statement > of today asserting GPL compatibility suggests that the answer must be > "in force/in force." Can you help?
I would point out that ASL2's clause 3 does not mention derivative works at all: it provides a patent license only for the Work, not for anyu Derivative Works licensed (under the terms of clause 4) under a different license. Since the Academic Free License 2.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php) uses essentially the same language as the ASL 2.0, it would be useful if the FSF could re-evaluate its position on the AFL as well. The other objection, to the trademark clause, seems moot given the FSF's acceptance of the extremely similar trademarks clause of the ASL2. I ask as a friend of Larry Rosen's and as a developer of AFL-licensed software. -- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
