apache license 2.0 for consideration

Roy T. Fielding fielding at apache.org
Thu Feb 19 21:10:36 UTC 2004

> 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 distribution.

Aside from that, there are no implied licenses to third parties.
Just because a person has received software from one company, indicating
that the company wished that person to use the software (an implied 
does not imply that the person can give the same software to a third
person and the implied license along with it.  The GPL has a stronger
restriction here in order to prevent the first person from receiving
the software as GPL in the first place; no such restriction is true
of any other license.  If you argue that such a restriction is
necessary for compatibility with the GPL, then no license is compatible
with the GPL (including itself, because the patent may be approved
after the initial GPL distributions).

The point I am making is that the Apache License does not have any
additional restrictions over the GPL.  A derivative work that is
distributed under only the GPL license does satisfy every single
condition or restriction in the Apache License.  If a patent does show
up and a lawsuit ensues, then for those people the Apache License
becomes no more permissive than the GPL.


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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list