Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9412 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2005 04:07:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Apr 2005 04:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 6315 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2005 04:07:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 6127 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2005 04:07:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 6114 invoked by uid 99); 4 Apr 2005 04:07:39 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com (HELO mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com) (216.173.237.166) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:07:39 -0700 Received: from www.rosenlaw.com (216.173.242.124) by mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 0-0327507655 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:07:36 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: Subject: RE: Apache License : grant of patent license and derivative works Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:07:34 -0700 Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 thread-index: AcU4w0BjBkc9xRiDQWS9ZB3iToXP6QAB1NSg In-Reply-To: <200504041105.49334.niclas@apache.org> Message-ID: <20050404000736.GA32750@mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com> X-Loop-Detect: 1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Niclas Hedhman asked: > What is the reasoning behind "to that software" and not "to all ASF > software" ?? After all, there isn't many organizations in the world that > is > free of ASF software, which would make a great deterent... The theory is that the licensee knows, when he in-licenses software, that he better not assert that *that software* infringes his patents. He can compare the value of *that software* to the value of *his patents infringed by that software*. There would be no easy way to assess the risk if it applied to *any ASF software* including software he doesn't even use. He might conclude that it is better to avoid ASF software entirely. But you're right.... If you want the strongest deterrent, that's what you would do. I believe, however, that tying things to the particular software is a reasonable compromise between "ruthlessness" and "toothlessness." /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:06 PM > To: legal-discuss@apache.org > Subject: Re: Apache License : grant of patent license and derivative works > > On Monday 04 April 2005 09:59, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > The entire license to that software, both copyright and patent grants, > > should terminate. > > What is the reasoning behind "to that software" and not "to all ASF > software" ?? After all, there isn't many organizations in the world that > is > free of ASF software, which would make a great deterent... > > Cheers > Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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