Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) writes: > Because the trigger of this termination is unrelated to the > software being licensed, (in contrast to the second sentence > of section 5) there is no good way to manage that termination > risk.
That's not a "risk", that's a decision. You don't have to use open source software if you don't want. If you decide to give up that benefit, then you also have to give up the benefit of enforcing your patents against open source developers. That said, I agree with you that the term is badly worded and needs to be changed. It should say "any patent OR COPYRIGHT licenses". The whole point of this term is to carve out a space whereby Apache developers can write software without fear that they will be sued for patent infringement. Large companies like HP, IBM, and others, who have a large patent portfolio, can use cross-licensing to protect themselves from patent infringement threats. Open source developers typically don't file for patents -- their only resource is their software. You would have HP deny its resources (patents) to people who threaten it. Why do you say that the ASF should NOT deny its resources (software) to people who threaten it? In other thread, Brian points out that this creates a potential quandry for a patent-holding Apache user. If somebody wants to cause them trouble, he can infringe their patent and contribute that code to Apache. I don't think that's the problem Brian thinks it is. First, they're an Apache user, so using that code helps them too. Second, they can implement a work-around and contribute it to Apache. Third, they can still enforce their patent against anybody who's using that software outside of Apache. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
