apache license 2.0 for consideration

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Eben Moglen scripsit:

>   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   practice patent P in the GPL'd code added to Apache by X withdrawn or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   code withdrawn or in force?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 clear to me, that the answer is "withdrawn/withdrawn."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?

I would point out that ASL2's clause 3 does not mention derivative
works at all: it provides a patent license only for the Work, not for
anyu Derivative Works licensed (under the terms of clause 4) under a
different license.

Since the Academic Free License 2.0
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php) uses essentially the same
language as the ASL 2.0, it would be useful if the FSF could re-evaluate
its position on the AFL as well.  The other objection, to the trademark
clause, seems moot given the FSF's acceptance of the extremely similar
trademarks clause of the ASL2.  I ask as a friend of Larry Rosen's and
as a developer of AFL-licensed software.

--
A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        The cause of his sorrow                 http://www.reutershealth.com
        Was para-dichloro-                      jcowan at reutershealth.com
Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3