www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gilles Scokart" <gscok...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Open Source vs Open Software
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:17:01 GMT
On 11/04/2008, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> I just became aware of Larry's OSL  (yes, I'm always last to the party).
>
>    http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm
>
>  My concern about the Apache License is this :
>
>  Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative works,
> and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to the covered Work.
> Period. You can make a derivative work due to Section 2 and you are safe for
> any claims of copyright infringement, but you're on your own with respect to
> patents.  I see no language that would hint to me that I can separate the
> patent license from the covered Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK (or any
> other work) which isn't the covered Work.
>
>  That's open source.
>
>  I suggested a change to the AL - instead of scoping the patent grant to
> just the covered Work, why not extend the scope to include derivative works?
>  Problem solved?
>
>  Well, Larry already did this. Here's his patent grant :
>
>   2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
>      royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under
>      patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are
>      embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor,
>      for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for
>      sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative Works.
>
>
>  Maybe we need to stop hoping that we can bend open source to the model we
> wish we had, and just move forward to the model we want to have :
>
>   "open source" - copyright freedom
>
>   "open software" - copyright and patent freedom
>
>

Don't forget that the ASF is distributing sources, and every source
file contains this sentence :
"The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0".
Which is I think what we want.

In your previous discussion, the WORK considered was the Harmony
software.  But the WORK we distribute can also be the
WonderfullSort.java source file subject to a patent.


>  geir
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>
>


-- 
Gilles Scokart

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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