On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.
He submitted comments on behalf of the FSF on November 14. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1127301
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
bitten by this before. So why not move everything to non-free which
is not under a GPL,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:46:37AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I think you must look at the entire picture --- not just the copyright
one --- to determine if software is free. I don't think its free if the
copyright holder decides to use patents, instead of copyright, to limit
your
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem.
President Bush considers a missile defense
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:16:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is
requiring.
As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
for any
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
bitten by this before. So why not move
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
Ken Arromdee said on Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:20:27PM -0800,:
by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)
(snip)
But that's not cheap. Going to law school costs a lot of money. Becoming a
software
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:16, John Goerzen wrote:
This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
already. In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to
let
your own company effectively ignore patents of others. After all, if
the
lawsuit filed against you
On Nov 17, 2003, at 13:35, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I'm a software developer. So the services of one may, under some
circumstances, cost me nothing at all (except my spare time). I
don't think
patent lawyers can get cheaper than
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:19:35AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The argument proposed was attempting to say No company is ever going
to grant free patent licenses; I pointed out the argument applies
equally to software
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
gain a software patent, you merely have to describe the general method
by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)
While I agree with your general
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.
Your own patents are only affected
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
of your own patents. That's non-free however you look
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:19:01AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Here's a bit from a hypothetical software license:
In addition, by using this software, you grant to the Original Author a
non-exclusive right to use, modify, and/or distribute any work of which you
own copyright, for as long as you
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is requiring.
As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use Apache.
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:19:01AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Here's a bit from a hypothetical software license:
In addition, by using this software, you grant to the Original Author a
non-exclusive right to use, modify, and/or distribute any work of
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is
requiring.
As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
for any of your software patents,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue and work out a quick
settlement -- even if
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any
patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under this
Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
(And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
*hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
gain a software patent, you merely have to describe the general method
by which you could create it. I find it highly
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
(And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
*hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
gain a software patent, you merely have to describe
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:17:23PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
What's currently there attempts to use the usefulness of Apache to buy
non-enforcement of software patents elsewhere, which I believe is
inappropriate for Free Software.
If that's all it did, I'd be fine with it. However, I
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue and
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without
modification (other than modifications that are
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Review of proposed Apache License, version
2.0]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Date: 17 Nov 2003 23:01:38 +
Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Scripsit [EMAIL
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
(And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
*hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=24
Correction: Jennifer Machovec is not drafting the license. She is an
attorney at IBM who submitted
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 11:24, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The patent prevents you from solving the covered problem, no matter
how you come to that solution. So the unlawfullness of integrating
the patented method into the parsing of your favorite text editor has
nothing to do with the web server.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
There's the difference that it takes explicit action and quite a bit
of money to acquire and keep holding a patent. Going through that
trouble just to grant the public a perpetual, non-exclusive,
worldwide, fully paid-up and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The argument proposed was attempting to say No company is ever going
to grant free patent licenses; I pointed out the argument applies
equally to software (it's the same one that proprietary software
advocates have been making for about 20 years,
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
On the other hand, copyright springs into being automatically. It
makes sense for somebody who have accidentally become bestowed with a
copyright to explicitly license it to the
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed for
any use which implements that standard.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The argument proposed was attempting to say No company is ever going
to grant free patent licenses; I pointed out the argument applies
equally to software
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
it (or at least keep an option open for using the patent to restrict
what people
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
licensed
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
it (or at least keep an option open
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
Yes, but a patent could not be part
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
licensed freely to the general public.
But it could be part of such a portfolio if it were licensed for use
in otherwise-free software only,
OK, granted.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
standards body
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a reciprocity
clause.
No sane company will ever grant a
Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
Will you please clarify why??
--
+~+
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
Will you please clarify why??
I'm assuming you meant the copyright assignment statement, and
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 14:39, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
Will you please clarify why??
I'm
- Forwarded message from Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
=
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only. ==
==
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
3.
How Apache went from a rather decent 5 clause license to the proposed
11 clause license is a mystery to me. I strongly suggest the license
be gone over with a fine toothed comb and searched for areas where it
can be made more general and less specific.
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003, Adam Warner wrote:
So you want companies to grant perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up and royalty free patent licenses that are completely
irrevocable even when another company is using their software and
suing them for software patent infringement?
What
56 matches
Mail list logo
