Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <E1450E8B-4A4E-465C-AB54-E1DA836EBAB8@pobox.com>
References: <307898.90861.qm@web54408.mail.yahoo.com>
 <4643E720-A197-4205-A172-703B691063A8@pobox.com>
 <03E5CE14-922B-4FC8-B38F-F56804FE9EBF@gbiv.com>
 <E1450E8B-4A4E-465C-AB54-E1DA836EBAB8@pobox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <D094F7CC-E731-4E62-BA6E-16A7DDF5B248@gbiv.com>
Cc: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>,
	Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
	Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:31:15 -0700
To: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>

On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different  
>>> software that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that  
>>> the license granted to users of the Work via the Apache License  
>>> apply to my users as well.  It feels analogous to "making and  
>>> selling copies" in the physical world.  (I realize how I feel is  
>>> irrelevant...)
>>
>> Are you a user?  Then you have the license.  It is a comprehensive  
>> license
>> that covers all patent monopolizing activities, including making  
>> and selling
>> covered Works to others.
>
> Why do you use the phrase "covered Works"?  Why wouldn't you say  
> "any software that infringes on the patent claims"?

Because that's not what the AL says and you are asking about a non-CLA
situation.

> Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a license to patent  
> claims that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project as  
> that's under the GPL?

Is it?  I don't think so.  In any case, GPLv2 has no patent licensing  
other
than implied patents, and Sun doesn't break the GPLv2 if it sues on the
basis of "give us your money *or* distribute as GPLv2".  That's  
because GPLv2
is not an open license (it is a limited license).

> In that case, since users receive those licenses by means of a  
> mechanism independent of the licensing of Apache Harmony - if I  
> understand you correctly, they are available as a direct  
> consequence of Sun placing the RI under the GPL - is it even  
> possible for Apache or Sun to now place constraints on the licenses  
> to those patent claims?

Only the patent owner can place constraints (not us) and I refuse to  
guess
what Sun will do next.

....Roy

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