apache license 2.0 for consideration
Roy T. Fielding
fielding at apache.org
Thu Feb 19 01:01:10 UTC 2004
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
> 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
> 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?
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss