On Mar 29, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Geir Magnusson wrote:
>> The Apache License says in
>> section 3 "Grant of Patent License" :
> <snip>
>> I read this to mean that if I make a derivative work, I have no reason
>> to believe that the patent license granted by the contributor to the
>> original work applies to me and my derivative work.
>
> I read it the same way. Not only that, but I read the patent grants in
> all
> other open source licenses the same way. A copyright license to create
> derivative works doesn't mean you get a patent license for whatever
> derivative works strike your fancy.
Reading carefully again, I'm still confused. I realize that there is a
nuance noted in another message on this thread because the Apache
License uses the term "patent claims" and I don't grok the subtly. Is
that a term of art for what non-lawyers would call "patents"? I didn't
realize that there were sub-licensable parts to a patent.
But if we can put that aside for the moment I believe that the last
sentence means
"The copyright license to create derivative works of a work with a
patent license doesn't mean you get that same patent license for your
derivative works".
or
"The patent license granted as part of the Apache License to a Work
doesn't apply to derivative works"
Yes?
The natural question about patches and enhancements to the work in the
project was I thought answered by Jeffrey, in that continued
development of the Work continues to be the Work to which the patent
license was granted.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
|