apache license 2.0 for consideration
mark at primefactor.com
Thu Feb 19 22:35:32 UTC 2004
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 in the work.
I think you're using the term "non-free" to mean two different things in
two different sentences.
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 you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache
| go away if you claim there exists a patent in the work that's not
| distributable under Apache license terms.
If "patents not distributable under GPL terms" == "patents not
distributable under Apache license terms", then I would agree that the
Apache license doesn't add a restriction not already in the GPL.
However, I claim that if there exist Apache-licensed patents that are
not also GPL-licensed, then the Apache license is not universally
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
Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code, it
breaks GPL licensing for everyone using that GPL'd code.
So, I would then worry that the Apache License's explicit
"don't-sue-or-you'll-lose-your-patent-license" restriction would be a
restriction above and beyond what the GPL by itself provides.
(By the way, I think we're still making some progress here, but if we
end up just repeating ourselves, I'm content to drop things and wait to
hear from FSF for more info, or discuss this elsewhere. No sense going
back and forth if we get to the point where we're merely repeating
> In other words, any GPL code that is combined with Apache License code
> remains under the GPL, which is the sole requirement for compatibility.
If someone can pull back a patent license via the Apache license
"through" an Apache->GPL'd work, then..it looks to me like Apache
requirements are still holding, and that the work is not just limited by
mark at primefactor.com
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss