apache license 2.0 for consideration
moglen at columbia.edu
Mon Feb 23 18:58:13 UTC 2004
Since you forwarded me the beginning of your list's thread on ASL2 and
GPL2 I have been preparing the analysis you quite rightly sought. I
regret that the statement at gnu.org was, and is, inadequate to
explain FSF's concerns; you have correctly inferred that I did not
Today's statement by the Apache Foundation raises a new question for
me, about which I had assumed that careful reading of your license
would provide an answer, but which I answered for myself--after such a
reading--differently than the Apache Foundation statement.
I hope we can clarify both our views quickly, to avoid the public row
that seems (unnecessarily so far as I can see) to be developing. For
this purpose, I need to ask the question raised by today's statement:
A developer, X, adds GPL'd code to Apache, and distributes the combination.
The combined code, including the GPL'd code itself, practices the
teaching of a patent, P, licensed under ASL2. A user, Y, asserts a
defensive patent claim of infringement by Apache. Is the license to
practice patent P in the GPL'd code added to Apache by X withdrawn or
in force? Is the license as to the ASL code combined with the GPL
code withdrawn or in force?
I have been assuming, on the basis of the license text, which seemed
clear to me, that the answer is "withdrawn/withdrawn." Your statement
of today asserting GPL compatibility suggests that the answer must be
"in force/in force." Can you help?
Thanks and best regards.
Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382
Professor of Law fax: 212-854-7946 moglen@
Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu
General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss