Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is a very complex set of issues. First, the patent is not only
licensed under the ASL2 -- it is actually licensed by the contributor
to the ASF and any recipient of the ASF's software as part of their
contribution. The Apache License makes the recipient aware of
Eben Moglen wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the
Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put
it in some other work.
In that case there would no mystery about the FSF position. If
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the method
of something and not to the particular expression, a patent license
for doing that something remains in force regardless of the software
that is later used to do it. The license is from the owner of the
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the
Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put
it in some other work.
It's hard to say, certainly. But consider this case: I have patented
a gear, and I give you a patent license to make
On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent
being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and
Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and
the company will have to claim Y
Roy,
Since you forwarded me the beginning of your list's thread on ASL2 and
GPL2 I have been preparing the analysis you quite rightly sought. I
regret that the statement at gnu.org was, and is, inadequate to
explain FSF's concerns; you have correctly inferred that I did not
write it.
Today's
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
Hello Eben,
Thanks for responding -- I do find your messages to be a great help
in understanding license issues.
On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Eben Moglen wrote:
Since you forwarded me the beginning of your list's thread on ASL2 and
GPL2 I have been preparing the analysis you quite
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.
On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the method
of
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that
it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the
resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple
licenses -- the GPL for modifications and the ASL for all the
Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking?
No, I am saying that the Apache License says:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your
Why, then, is the MIT license compatible with the GPL?
Because the MIT license is silent about patents; in and of itself,
it can't do anything to require you to breach the GPL's licensing
terms. (It may be that the word use provides an implied patent
license.) A specific MIT-licensed program may
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost
without
restriction:
That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not
move along with the work. The patent may be owned by a completely
separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time
of
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:10, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost
without
restriction:
That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not
move along with the work.
I may not be following your meaning here. Assuming
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:30, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is covered by non-free
patents. The Apache License says that any patent licenses granted to
you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache go away if you claim
there exists a non-free patent
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
I also claim that since the Apache license can retract
Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims,
that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd
code.
Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code,
I think you're using the term non-free to mean two different things
in
two different sentences.
Nope.
Let me reword: :-)
| The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is
| covered by patents not distributable under GPL terms. The Apache
| License says that any patent
| licenses granted to
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that
seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL,
but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have
been revoked.
That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the
GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute
it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A.
Sure he can
On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 03:22 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
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
Roy T. Fielding scripsit:
Code incorporating patents, when the code and contributors' patents are
licensed solely under the MIT license, cannot be incorporated into a
derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because any recipient who
receives a copy of such a derivative work has no rights to
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 20:01, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Allow me to make a less convoluted translation:
Code incorporating patents, when the code and contributors' patents are
licensed solely under the MIT license, cannot be incorporated into a
derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
snip
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
take a gander at this?
This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
snip
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
take a gander at this?
This license was
Russell Nelson wrote:
If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval
committee will have to work without your input. As we're only human,
we might make a mistake, and approve an Apache license which didn't
comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I do wonder about
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the
Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without
any additional terms
Rodent of Unusual Size writes:
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval. it's online at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
and i'm attaching the text version to
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 04:04 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval. it's online at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
and i'm attaching the text version to this message.
it is our belief that this
29 matches
Mail list logo
