apache license 2.0 for consideration

[Mark Shewmaker]

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 that a particular
section of code incorporating a patent is distributed under the MIT
license, and that same particular section exists in a derivative work of
that code distributed under the GPL license, I would assume that in most
cases that same section of code still incorporates the patent.

I'm probably missing something here.

(I am ignoring the case where the same code can infringe or not infringe
a patent depending on how it's used or what it's used for.  I'm guessing
that's outside the scope of the argument.)

> The patent may be owned by a completely
> separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time
> of distribution.

That is true.  For simplicity I intended to only refer to copyrights and
patents that the contributor had rights to license, although I admit I
didn't word that in my previous message as clearly as I should have: 
"And I'm assuming of course that the licensor/contributors have full
copyrights and patent rights to the code".

> 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 
> grant),
> does not imply that the person can give the same software to a third
> person and the implied license along with it.

Absolutely incorrect:  "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to
any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
documentation files..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark at primefactor.com

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