www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohammad Isac Niclas bin Abdullah <nic...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IBM's license for WS-Security - Take #2
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:25:42 GMT
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 03:32, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> If there is a necessary patent, all Apache can do is make sure that it is
> licensed so that those that use Apache's implementation are covered.

AFAIK, this is not in the spirit of the "Apache Way". "use" is not defined to 
binary copies, but usage of source code in any way what so ever.

I thought that ALv2 clause 2,3 and 4 (backed by clause 2 and 3 in the CLA)  is 
fairly clear, that I can take and do whatever I want with the codebase, and 
know that the original contributor(s) will not come after me for patent 
infringements. And

(Infringements of 'unknown' patents is of course a different story, as it is 
for any software development, open source or commercial, and not of 
discussion here.)

> If your goal is to ensure that your licensees have all necessary patent 
> and copyright rights to create whatever derivative works they want 
> from Apache's source code, you are bound to fail.  That is an 
> impossible task.

Yes, I think that has been the goal, and if it is not, then I think a 
clarification is needed from the Board of how the patent issues are supposed 
to be dealt with both for the relevant projects as well as for all the users 
out there, who think that ASF code base has no known patent issues attached 
to it.

Jeffrey, I really appreciate that you are taking time to answer "this layman".

|   http://www.bali.ac         |
|  http://niclas.hedhman.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

View raw message