apache license 2.0 for consideration

[Roy T. Fielding]

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 would have been restricted by
>> the patent absent the Apache License.
>
> Let me make a more limited, but far more convoluted, claim:
>
> "Code incorporating patents (when the code and contributors' patents 
> are
> licensed solely under the Apache License Version 2.0) cannot be
> (safely?) incorporated into a derivative work distributed under GPLv2,
> because any recipient who receives a copy of such a derivative work is
> required to refrain from alleging infringement of any of his own 
> patents
> incorporated into the original Apache-License-only code.  (That
> requirement is more strict than the GPL's requirement to license the
> patent for GPL use.)"

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 any recipient who
receives a copy of such a derivative work has no rights to use any of
the patents incorporated into the original MIT code."

Why, then, is the MIT license compatible with the GPL?

....Roy

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3