Paul Johnson wrote: > I've looked at the proposed Apache License 2.0, and I'd like to suggest > that you extend the patent defence clause to withdraw the license from > anyone who tries to enforce a patent against *any* open source software.
That's the wording that was used in the Open Software License 2.0 and the Academic Free License 2.0 (by Larry Rosen). The FSF seems to believe such a clause is incompatible with the GPL: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06107.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06230.html Generally speaking, the clause seems unreasonably broad, since if I get software from you, why should you be allowed to tell me I cannot sue someone you've never heard of? Giving up patent rights on your software is generally reasonable (almost all OSS licenses do that)? Many companies currently try to find a balance between OSS and proprietary software. One aspect is the risk they perceive to their patent portfolio. You can manage this risk by saying "No, this OSS uses none of our patents" or "Well, this patent isn't very valuable, let's give it up" for specific pieces of software, and rejecting any OSS that implements one of your valuable patents. Your proposal makes this approach impossible. The only alternative left is to say "We have software patents we might want to enforce, so we cannot use Apache-licensed stuff." It is unrealistic to believe that companies will say "Oh, in that case we'll just give up on software patents altogether". In other words, this broad clause may actually hurt Apache's installed base in corporations. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
