www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Open Source, Patents and "Patent Exhaustion"
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:25:19 GMT
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think the explicit grant as is good.  All I'm
> >> saying is that the
> >> fact you can't use the patent license grant for
> >> "pretty much whatever
> >> you want" doesn't invalidate the work as open
> >> source.
> >
> > When "pretty much whatever you want" stands for
> > the rights conferred by the Apache License 2.0,
> > which includes without limitation the right to
> > make and distribute derivative works, I think
> > it's pretty safe to conclude that even though
> > the patent grant in section 3 is tied to the work,
> > the rest of your rights are not superceded by
> > the limitations inherent in the patent grant
> > language.
> 
> I simply don't agree.   You have no right to the
> patent beyond the  
> patent grant and what US law says and in the end,
> what a court would  
> say, I suppose.
> 
> The right to make and distribute derivative works is
> a right that is  
> interpreted in the context of copyright law, and is
> therefore silent  
> on what happens with any associated patent grants.
> 
> A derivative work isn't the original Work.  It may
> not even infringe  
> on the patents that the original Work infringed.
> 
> I think that once you make a derivative work, you're
> really on your  
> own wrt patent grants associate with the original
> work.

Well I think that depends entirely on the language
in the license.  The MIT license, which grants the
right to "deal in the software without restriction"
is pretty clearly a patent license as well as a
copyright one.

> 
> I have an easy fix to this whole mess.  Modify
> section 3 of the AL to  
> read (my additions in CAPS) :
> 
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and
> conditions of  
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You
> a perpetual,  
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable (except  
> as stated in this section) patent license to make,
> have made, use,  
> offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer
> the Work OR ANY  
> DERIVATIVE WORKS where such license applies only to
> those patent  
> claims licensable by such Contributor that are
> necessarily infringed  
> by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of
> their  
> Contribution(s) with the Work to which such
> Contribution(s) was  
> submitted OR ANY DERIVATIVE WORKS OF THE WORK TO
> WHICH SUCH  
> CONTRIBUTION(S) WERE SUBMITTED.
> 
> Best of luck.

Interesting, but perhaps unnecessary.  The
question is whether or not section 3 places
limits on the rights conferred in section 2.
Not sure why you needed a questionnaire instead
of just making the statement "it does" outright.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message