apache license 2.0 for consideration

Roy T. Fielding fielding at apache.org
Tue Feb 24 01:22:29 UTC 2004

> 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.

On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the "method"
of something and not to the particular expression, a patent license
for doing that something remains in force regardless of the software
that is later used to do it.  The license is from the owner of the
method to the legal entity using that method.

In other words, it is a blanket permission -- once you have the
permission, you can use whatever tool you like (even one not derived
from the ASL2 work) up until the permission is revoked.

If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent
being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and
Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and
the company will have to claim Y infringes as well (or drop
the case entirely).  As such, there is no need for the patent license
to talk about derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so,
since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law.

IANAL, so I'm not sure if that is codified somewhere or simply the
collective experience of those I've talked to.


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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list